- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
The Government is spending $800,000 to investigate sexual violence after the Treasury calculated the crimes cost the country more than $1 billion a year. Stuff Link
Ministry of Women’s Affairs chief executive Shenagh Gleisner said the latest police survey of crime victims showed only 12 per cent of sexual violence victims reported it.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Only 12 % are reported ?
If 88% of sexual violence is not reported how would you know it exists?
It is reported that
“It estimated every sexual crime cost the country over $72,000.”
This is saying that there is $72,000 made by various people out of each reported sexual crime.
Clearly it is better business to promote the reporting of sexual crime than it is to promote the reporting of, say, burglary, or common assault, which generates a much lower turnover.
John
Comment by John Brett — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 7:36 pm
The do gooders and noble causes brigade exist in what they think is the incontestable moral high ground. It only remains incontestable as long as you are prepared to swallow bullshit. There will be more comatose journalists in NZ than conscious, once we wrench the tubes from their stomachs and take them off their “drip” feeds.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 6th September 2007 @ 9:31 pm
The greediest beneficiaries in NZ, are the do-gooders who profit from “family crime”. The only way to serve the most vulnerable members of our society, is to accurately and honestly identify the nature and the extent of all of the problems and to address all of them, in proportion to the degree of the problem.
I believe that we crush more children, in their own parent’s driveways, than women+children+men die in family violence? These incidents can be more quickly and beneficially addressed than family violence, so are we sharing our resources appropriately between these problems?
What is the real agenda?
We need to look very carefully at the quality of service and value for money, that all of the beneficiaries of the “domestic violence industry” provide.
I believe that the lowest value for money presently are the familycaught judges? (Even poorer than Women’s Refuge!)
There is change occurring, some good and some not so good.
Accountability through provision of honest and not misleading information to the public is a necessary ingredient to sort out all of these problems. We need to look very carefully at the public communications from all of these groups and look at how truthfull it is?
What is their real agenda?
Where is their heart? (What will they do without being given taxpayer’s money?)
In general, the most vulnerable group in our society, is mental health patients, perhaps more so than “women or children”. The latter are more sexy for public and politicians, which is why the District Health Boards siphon off money allocated by Parliament, for mental health treatment and divert it to women’s and children’s health. Mental health patients do not have a very effective public voice or receive much public sympathy.
It seems that a disproportionate number of mental health patients are men and men’s health also has been somewhat neglected. Maybe this isn’t such a bad thing, as most men would rather live life to the full, as quickly as they can and be cut down when nature finally catches up. I prefer this, to living in cotton wool and dying anyway! What a waste of being alive?
Rodney Hide is drawing attention to legislation quality. Please communicate to him and the other politicians, the Acts of Parliament, that you believe serve the citizens of NZ poorly and what changes should be made to improve their value for money. Unclear statutes and statutes without clearly defined values or with confusing values are probably at the top of the list for needing to be changed.
This is why it is important that Parliament should receive reports about the quality of proposed legislation, BEFORE IT IS PASSED!
Show your love for your children, by doing something! MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 7:26 am
Oone perview of these scripts could describe a dismissal of one problem where it is versed to another where negative affect versus negative affect effects greater negatives.
Where this is not immediately composed to the original text and replying more to the philisophical frame of the collective commentaries, combining here with Murray’s call for action, surely, the philosophy of an effective group must be cohesive, rational and composed to a direction.
One thing that strikes me as being common between physical and sexual impropriety is that is exposes a lack of ability by the individual acting for that behaviour to express their needs in any other way. This, obviously, from a societal perspective is a detrimental limitation. Yet if it is a meritorious view, then it points to the lack of education to encompass the necessities of the individual behaving badly to express themselves in any other way. Really, this is blatantly obvious. Yet the focus that we as a society take instead of that to encase an improvement by function of education is to seek to punish the behaviour: “wrenching tubes” – so to speak. The alternative is far more powerful, far more effective and far more rewarding. Intestinal leaking on a very plush carpet is surely most unpleasant.
Anger that demands physical force is an act of ignorance where the individual expresses an inability as best they can no to comprehend the dimensions to achieve. Sexual impropriety is exactly the same. The individual behaving in such a way cannot effectively express their need as conditioned to “love” and in that, whatever confusion acts in a manner that can be damaging of others.
If this is accepted in any form, then it is most simply just the recognition that there is a problem. To get angry about the problem lacks the distinction to overcome its negative affect and the circle develops, going on and on.
My point relative to the journalists who have mitigated their responsibilities by either “exercising their expression” or “not exercising their expression” (I’m not too sure above which view is being promoted collectively), is that if there is to be change, it certainly won’t be achieved by drawing them out for anger. That is just posturing. The arguments that will counter the negative behaviour of journalists, whatever it turns out to be, will best be countered by the menz movement figuring out “why” there is a tendency for sexual crimes not to be reported. In all my years of protesting, I haven’t yet heard an argument that covers this particularly damaging condition. If men are more inclined to act innapropriately sexually, then this is the study that needs to be supported by men.
When you get to this stage, you are able to analyse the comparisons between the way society looks at violence, where it is so much easier to define that women’s nature as perpertrators of violence is under recognised or researched. The same then could be said of sexual violence. Women think of sex, differently than men. This surely means that if they are violent in any form, its manifestation will somewhat different from that of the male. This comment is off the radar – and Peter Zohrab would likely be the only contender here of whom I am aware with any real challenge in on society and how it smudges women’s sexual violence. I am sure, given the way that domestic violence is overridden with a simplicity that it only constitutes sexual or physical form that his argument will be profound in many instances.
Yet, by saying that there is an imbalance in the way we measure sex and that this in some way gives a licence to despense with the perversity and carnage caused for such a violence is as weak an argument as comparing it to validity with children’s deaths on home driveways. It is simply a distraction.
What it does lead to, however, is a demand to view how we measure these things and the perpertration of such debilitating behaviours, and quite simply – we don’t. This is why we are socially bankrupt. This is why our circles of violence just go on and on and on.
Now academics will be screaming here, saying that, of course we do. But YOU don’t. YOU have not protected society for your education, learning to better society in a way that the masculine need is in any way equal in importance to that of the feminine need.
If I am wrong, (any) Professor, please call me a liar.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 11:13 am
Great comments Murray and others. Here comes another beatup and another reason for the witch doctors (lawyers and lawyer-judges) to boost their business. The real harm that feminism has done everyone is that there has never been an honest debate on any of the issues that they have dominated.
Comment by Jerry — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Agreed Jerry, as the gravy train of the judicial system do not allow honest debate and the truth has no time for all these leaches who suck blood money from a file number !! It makes my blood boil as it is so corrupt . Can’t they see the damage they are doing to society !!
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I urge you guys here to be very careful concerning your privacy rights at the IRD.Because I know for certain that some of the staff there are giving out information of men’s earnings to ex-wives when they do not have the authority to do so.
Comment by rosie — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 6:20 pm
hmmm.
Is someone here trying to hoodwink us? Is it really Women’s Refuge funding time again? Are we really all meant to be that stupid????
On 2 April 2007, we were calmly informed in the media, that “The total number of offences recorded in 2006 was 424,134”
(I refer to a Stuff.co.nz article, quoting Assistant Commissioner Grant Nicholls)
Of this, the same article told us, “Sexual offences made up 0.8 per cent of recorded crime. ”
Ergo, 3393 sexual offences reported in 2006.
Now I’m no mathematician, but my 5 year old daughter tells me that …
Per this article, 3393 offences is only 12% of committed offences.
Ergo, actual number of offences estimated at 28,276 per annum.
At a cost to NZ of $72,000 per offence, this amounts to a Sexual Abuse industry of $2,035,843,200, or, OVER $2 BILLION per annum!!!!!!!
I suppose it makes $800,000 seem a drop in the ocean, a mere pittance to throw at the femi-nazi sexual abuse industry machine.
Should I mention the other $900,000 thrown at the Ministry of Women’s Affears back in March (reported on stuff.co.nz 28/2/07)
“The Government is going to spend nearly $1 million on research into sexual violence, conviction rates and victim support.
The ministers of women’s affairs, justice and police said the $900,000 grant would fund a two-year project aimed at improving the justice system for adult victims of sexual violence.
It will investigate how many reports of sexual violence end up with a successful conviction, look at ways to improve the likelihood of victims making formal complaints and investigate how victims can best be supported through the criminal justice system. “
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 7:14 pm
p.s., would you trust Treasury to run this beloved country’s finances, given their own estimate on this whole inductry is already out by over $1 Billion????
Comment by Frank & Earnest — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 7:17 pm
I urge you guys here to be very careful c
Rosie,
Please email me details offline.
Thanks
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 7th September 2007 @ 8:19 pm
What is your email address Scrap?
Comment by rosie — Sat 8th September 2007 @ 8:20 am
[email protected]
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sat 8th September 2007 @ 11:53 am
“The Government is going to spend nearly $1 million on research into sexual violence, conviction rates and victim support.
The ministers of women’s affairs, justice and police said the $900,000 grant would fund a two-year project aimed at improving the justice system for adult victims of sexual violence.
It will investigate how many reports of sexual violence end up with a successful conviction, look at ways to improve the likelihood of victims making formal complaints and investigate how victims can best be supported through the criminal justice system. “
It certainly look as if the criminalisation of male sexuality is in full swing. The emphasis seems to be on increased conviction rates at any cost – a premise that can only be accepted if the male role in matters sexual is considered inherently anti-social, and the female one its moral opposite.
The legalisation of prostitution begins to take on a more sinister aspect as well. As an illegal activity, those men who availed themselves of these services were unknown and undocumented. Now, as a consequence of that particular law change, the female supplier of a “social harm” has been de-criminalised, and the male clientele can be arrested and jailed with only a small law change concordant with current trends. The evidence against these men will have been building up for years.
Other initiatives are also well under way. What started as a wariness of men as child molesters has translated into all men being potential molesters on commercial aircraft. A new development in this trend has become apparent in the USA, where the public is being advised to watch for and report any behaviour that doesn’t ‘feel right’. The picture on the posters is that of a well-dressed adult male holding the hand of a little girl. In a more innocent age, we would have all recognised it as a father out with his daughter. Now he’s a suspect. Never mind that the innocent interpretation is the correct one 99.999% of the time. (I have probably missed several 9’s). The effect of this is that most men will scale down physical contact with their children, and the young will increasingly see the male is dangerous. Females become the right and natural leaders of society.
For the moment, more men can expect public humiliation, financial damages and jailing. I suppose, for now, the appropriation of their property will cover the cost of their imprisonment.
But what after? When we have our perfect world of women in charge and men in their place, what real value is there in keeping impoverished, reprehensible, dangerous and genetically irredeemable men alive in cells?
Perhaps we can talk about this at more leisure when all we’re behind barbed wire.
Comment by Rob Case — Sat 8th September 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Now I don’t know how “the latest police crime survey” measured that only 12% of sexual crimes are reported. It’s interesting that such figures (often much more outlandish than 12%) are never accompanied by any link or reference to the research paper or by any description of the research methodology. Aside from suggesting the researchers/spokespeople have something to hide, this is also an indictment on the journalists who fail to ask the obvious question “how exactly did you come up with these figures?”. Whenever I have followed up such claims about sexual violence I have found that the research methods were designed to come up with sensational figures. I expect the “latest police crime survey” will be no exception. For example, such surveys might ask respondents whether in the last 12 months they experienced any sexual harrassment, unwanted sexual advances, uninvited sexual touching or were pressured or forced to engage in sexual behaviour they did not want to engage in. The questions invariably are ambiguous (“pressured or forced” could mean anything from being asked nicely to being threatened with rejection if denied to being tied down and made to submit) and cover all manner of situations that would never reasonably be seen as a sexual crime, but all “yes” responses are nevertheless claimed to reflect unreported sexual crimes. In fact, whether something was a sexual crime or not is usually a complex matter, hinging on details such as the presence or absence of consent given or implied, the perceptions of the parties about any consent and whether those perceptions could be reasonably formed by an average person, and the exact nature of the behaviour. Such factors will never be properly ascertained through casual and anonymous survey responses, but little or no care is taken by the researchers to limit their conclusions accordingly. Then there is the assumption that anonymous survey respondents are even trying to tell the truth. Why would anyone assume this? I would expect that many women captured by feminist ideology might falsely claim they had been subjected to sexual crimes in order not to let down the women’s movement in its claims of patriarchal victimization and need for further special privilege. Post-modern philosophies that see all truth and reality as subjective invention tend to be favoured by feminists and readily justify inventing whatever stories promote their cause. If in addition the research uses inadequate sample size and selection methods you very quickly obtain figures that bear little relationship to the real world. For example, if the sample consists mainly of younger people then one can expect a high number of reports of unwanted sexual advances, often consisting of young men’s bumbling but benign and respectful attempts to initiate intimate behaviour.
The gullibility of the population is truly incredible.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 8th September 2007 @ 1:57 pm
The complication, as must be encouraged to be pursued as natural, leading on from your script Rob; where what I am describing is that the male’s sexual drive is dramatically different from that of a woman’s; and that it is that drive itself which is the target of those demanding it be pacified empowering a deminished masculinity simpler to control is from where the extreme feminist idealogue could and should be isolated. The common argument defending these conditions of analysis maturity, at this juncture, is that egalitarianism, (or “love and peace” for its more widely recognised score) has to mitigate and then thereby balance the physical differences between the male and the female in order to gain its ground. Women are different from men. Men tend to be rough and hard, women tend to be soft and gentle.
If this thinking holds any weight, then it is logical to arrive back at the natural conclusions of our animalistic state.
So poised, in this, is the question of women’s violence. If we accept that women tend more to be soft and gentle than the male, then how is it that a relatively small group of predominantly men, could be arguing against the status quo to say that women are as equally violent as men? And more importantly where there is overwhelming evidence that this group (us) are not given a lot of credit, why should any in society believe them?
If this analysis is balanced this far, then it is fair to suggest that we arrive back again at how we measure violence. What is its constitution? Is it all just fists and bullying innuendo, or could it be as well, provocation and manipulation?
If any conclude as I suggested earlier that acting out physical or sexual violence is more a manifestation of incapability to handle the circumstances in front of the individual, as I am implying that that expression is exactly what sexual and physical violence is all about, then; what attention are we paying to those behaviours that promote that ignorance and/or non ability to cope with detrimental circumstances that could alienate/isolate, any one individual.
This is where I challenge our social development as being as inept as it is bankrupt. We are simply focused on punishing those behaviours which become most manifest quickly, and fiscally, as a necessary contributory to fiscal development and freedom, we feed those behaviours. If you don’t have violence, you don’t have lawyers.
IF; there is any credibility to the above observation, and as we are talking here in the many billions of $, then the question on how and why this condition has been allowed to mature. Why?
When asking why – where the domestic violence of all kinds in New Zealand, at least, is highly prevalent you, one, naturally arrive at the question of who? Who knows this stuff? Do the university professors know this when they lecture a group? I would argue that they do.
So then you arrive at the question of why isn’t this stuff, that which recognises that physical and sexual violence are more an expression of ignorance and not being able to cope with ones immediate circumstances; and to lash out, is more an expression of disempowerment than it is a will to inflict damage on any one individual, would transfer its logic into public policy?
The politicians.
But that isn’t what capitalism is all about. Capitalism is about the freedom to make as much money as you want. That’s all. Nothing else.
So the two primary questions I ask where my conclusion is that, if “men” cannot be trusted with children because of their dysfunction (alleged) in sexuality; who is it who would control the greatest benefit from this societal conclusion? (2) And then, logically, who are the primary victims if this conclusion, in fact and truth, is a dysfunction?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 8th September 2007 @ 2:28 pm
I am not sure that men are rough and hard and women are soft?
In 20 years time, the consequences of absolute “Child Support Act” strict liability*** will have soaked into our national psyche and kulture.
***even after sex with an underage boy, fraud eg later use of contents of condom without consent (UK example from UK newspaper) and at least in theory, even after imprisonment of a male to harvest sperm.
Many people “assume” that men are always the pusher, but perhaps we will see some women being more sexually aggressive and men more on the defensive and feeling chased.
The possibility of “women behaving badly” isn’t just a joke. When women have the opportunity, without fear of repercussion, then some behave as badly as many men do now. Employment changes are resulting in some women having little spare time and lots of money to spend….
Don’t assume that men are always the initiator. Men and boys caught by surprise (a woman making the moves can be a big surprise!), have the same fear or flight instincts as any women, even if they are not aware of this yet.
We are embarking on a very interesting experiment and who knows where it will all end.
Even now, women are committing a significant fraction of the sexual harassment. It is as important that we protect young boys and girls, from women, as from men.
Take off your blinkers and judge the seriousness of behaviours, by the real world consequences, for the people on the receiving end.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?
With more women realising their childbearing years are slipping away – Maybe it will be: hell hath no fury like a woman frustrated?
Hasn’t she got a right to get pregnant when she wants to, rather than the man having a right to say no, just cause he doesn’t want to pay “Child and Spouse Support Act” payments?
As long as I can escape into death, I won’t feel too threatened by social changes. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 8th September 2007 @ 7:49 pm
I watched a US tv cop programme recently, one of those shows that follow cops actually on their beat. The cop saw a somewhat drunk woman walk up to a guy on the street and start touching and kissing him. The woman was quite attractive and the guy seemed quite happy to play along with her. The cop then interrupted them, interrogated them and even put handcuffs on the guy when he wouldn’t stop objecting to the police harrassment. The cop then lectured the woman that her behaviour risked someone taking advantage of her! Then the cop took the handcuffs off the guy and told him to get out of the area and “I don’t want to see you around here again taking advantage of drunk women”. To me this episode showed starkly how male-demonization has captured the belief system in western societies. In fact, this woman sexually assaulted a stranger but that didn’t even appear to be noticed. I’m amazed people are so blinded by feminist sexism that they don’t see it. If the genders were reversed the cop would almost certainly have charged him with something, and certainly wouldn’t have blamed the woman or told the guy to be careful about being taken advantage of!
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 9th September 2007 @ 12:12 pm
My thinking Murray, for your reply, is that there was no room for you to disagree. I was describing natural function. To dismiss it, as if it were an attempt in subjective persuassion would be to miss the entire point of what I wrote – (and I do apologise to those confused for a couple of the paragraphs for dropping linking words to bridge between why and who).
While it may appear as if an escape from the main theme, the dialogue I present is to decry the view that separates gender to a form, where one of those two groups can (and would) dominate over the other. I am fairly confident for your writing that we share this view. Yet in order so to recognise any definable balance – there must be an exact definition, by, and for, a specific constitution of and between these two groups (transgender is not defined yet significantly enough in order to fundamentally challenge any exluding premise, even if the rule specific to determine a; as genetic and biological role, if when such challenge matures, in order as best to accomodate this development).
A principle, I am raising here, as consistent with the majority of my writing is that there is little point in talking about these issues if and where they can trasgress into more illusive as dysfunctional, even if enjoyable discussion.
Your reply, I perceive, while in the main agreeing to the value that there needs to be change, or as you say, that blinkers need to be removed, will do little more than encourage the value of a public to retain those blinkers, unless (1) The alternative is clear and (2) The point to be disected to a fact has a base principle that is incontestable.
And in this you do not agree. The primary component of these discussions is a value somewhere between nature and nurture – and this instruction enables the circular construction of an argument to take an authority – a bit like the domestic violence industry.
If the argument to be presented (that which may be common) is one that will overpower those ordinarily employed mechanisms to disaffect its capacity to to expand – it will be because the most primary fact is incontestable.
If we cannot agree that women (and I did deliberately generalise, as it is impossible at this stage anyway to categorise life into any one predicatable cell), are softer as necessary and men are harder, then there will be a difference if the sentence “women are different from men” could be an accountable fact, be possible to find a written definition to which all (would generally) agree.
A couple of these may be: (1) Men need to love and women need to be loved. Or; (2) A woman has the natural function to protect two, where a man’s function must be nurtured to protect three.
No matter which way it is to be described, what must be recognised is that men and women are functionally different. While it is, as we do, that we demand that one set of principles is the demanded “natural” function to which our society must subscribe, then we limit our development for an overarching principle of discrimination and bias. Just as Hans points out. There are constant examples of how we excuse women from any form of accountability when it comes to the social protection of equality. Women are beautiful and men are rough.
To translate this oobservation, if any can concur, the primary cause for need is the protectionof our offspring. Of course, the offspring needs access and association with the genetic and biological influences of its constiution. Without it – that offspring is disadvantaged. Societally if we accept the disaffection of that offspring from its biological and genetic parentage, then we guarantee an impediment on that individual life form. That in New Zealand we have made it legal, and worse, as directly inconsistent with the International convention build to protect children, as if only “we” could have the right ideas about what our offspring really need, is nothing short of embarrassing. Let alone how much damage has already been done and over what period.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 9th September 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Ben, I haven’t been able to follow your line of thought?
I have suggested that the issues of initiator and responder might not be solely determined by male/female and hormone levels, but by
1. availability – somehow – of abortion,
2. social issues related to consequential risks, such as bearing a child without partner support, (men can also be left holding the baby!)
3. social support for the particular parenting relationship, ie sole mother or sole father or together couple,
4. risk of child support financial liability (this can hit a woman as hard as it can hit a man),
5. accountability (sometimes more accountability may be required of a man than a woman?
6, the old hit and run that men could get away with, seems to have been replaced by women being able to get away with hit (get the guys ID) and run,
7. lack of faith that familycaught is there to protect women, children AND men?
You have suggested that men and women are fundamentally different.
I see men and women as being fundamentally similar in their responses, but maybe this is only cup half full, cup half empty?
Words aside, has anyone noticed young men showing a little less interest in women nowadays, than say half a century ago?
Or women pressing a little harder in private and in public?
Do you make any comments on these issues to your children?
I see this as young men wising up to the risks that they are facing, that their fathers never faced.
Are you comfortable with the new path that our society appears to be taking?
Is there a hand on the tiller, or is NZS New Zild sailing with just a skeleton’s hand on the tiller?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 9th September 2007 @ 7:28 pm
If you read your text Murray, carefully, and away from the subjective points you detail to explain and develop your view, you should realise, how far you are away from comprehending what I am talking about.
Nature – of homosapiens is split (primarily) into two predominant groups. There is a third; but that groups ability to register its existence agaisnt modern and mainstream society, still at difficulty to define the basic principles of their own probative existance have not matured socially into a degree of common recognition, and thereby acceptance. This is transgender. This is not homosexuality as it has been disguised and exploited.
The point I ask you to think about to measure your view, comparing it to mine, is which comes first – the femilycaught as you may call it, or fact and proceedures?
Your writing, recently, consistently points towards proactive involvement and definative dialogue in order to overcome a problem, yet I challenge, as we progress toward this area that your view is permeated with a position defined into your subjective view, and that view, thereby, is the balance to reason – after all in Darwinian function, is this principle not the commanding demand?
It may feel, as if I am demeaning you, where my purpose, is less to achieve an authority over the objective principle, but to encourage every reader and writer to recognise that the complaints that are being made by groups such as ours, societaly, are based on fact and researched principle. To just throw it all away in a respect of “whoever shouts the loudest has the most fun” misses the vision of collectivity, purpose and its progress.
I say this because a group with an intention to overthrow an oppression is the only function that will ever achieve to overthrow that oppression. This makes any discussion wanting to masticate more theory tedious to the task. What we need is to harness a group with common dialogue and direct action as its instrument for change.
So what I was looking for in my last script was for an agreement. Above, you have missed this point and circular dialogue is maintained throwing hope into the discussion where you are still looking to find that point of common dialogue: and I reply what is it?
What I have said, is that all of the factors you have raised as more primary to the problem are secondary and built from a cause. That cause is what we need to define and then, once defined it can be challenged.
Fortunately in the academic world of New Zealand, the primary issue was challenged on Radio New Zealand National yesterday, and the news is ALL good. A platfom in this country has been laid and any who wish to stand on that platform should be encouraged, because you have the ethical cause.
I say this without being able to give the name of the Canadian invited ethisist to give a speech (part 2 of 3) from a Canadian sponsored annual forum, at some time in some year. The important fact was that she gave it, and that it was played on Sunday afternoon to a New Zealand audience by our National Radio station, (the one to which the clever and powerful have to listen).
Same sex marriage that is to produce offspring is not OK. Producing human life from genetic manipulation is not OK. Restricting association and access to a child of their genetic (she used another term with which I am not familiar) and biological parentage, is not OK.
SO: (while I respect curteously those who will continue to disagree) the FACT, that Margaret Wilson did not follow through with her funtional obligation to the public, by issue in respect to the legal requirement to observe DUE PROCESS, so to protect children born of assisted human reproductive technology as we have instiuted its function in this country, is “not OK!”.
Wellington – we have a problem.
Now there are those, hopefully in this audience, who also heard the item and for having read some of my submissions will be comprehensively aware of what was discussed and its developmental meaning. The unnamed ethisist would agree with my view, that we are in fact ethically in the midst of a social emergency of an unprecedented nature. So I say at this stage Murray, asking you for your effective tenacity to come up to speed and listen to that item (sorry I don’t have the link).
And I would like to preemptively trump those readers who read who would directly disagree that in fact the quoted ethisist went so far. She did.
Listen to the paragraph where she determined (something like) that; “even” in the UK there have been legal measures taken to allow children to contact their biological parents at the age of 18. Then compare what she said to logic, knowledge and sense, encouraging yourself if you really must that this woman has no nounce to know the difference between the age of (18) and the protection of and for determining (children). She knew exactly what she was saying.
In New Zealand, this little game was played, attempting to damage children at the age of (16), because in New Zealand that is the age we try and set in all of our confidence that WE know best, the age WE think that children are accessible to be damaged. It was shocking.
Now I hope any reader has figured out what I have just pointed to, because if not, then please either ask some more questions, so that I can better describe what I have described, or, alternatively continue to ignore the social engineering that has not only been established as unethical, dangerous and having been implimented across the westernised world, but more particularly, in this country having been sought to be exploited even deeper into this ethical perversion.
In an earlier script I related having been to Chris Carter’s office and having talked to Sam. Sam reckoned that NZ were improving the lot of the UNited Nations by instituting provisions that could remove the association of a child with their biological and genetic (generally) father. Hopefully, some readers will grasp, that if the ethics of a society is to change to recognise a common ethic, it is because there is a demonstrable demonstration of demand for that change.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 11:36 am
Is Sam gay? I am wondering if you have been talking to Chris’s secretary.
Yes, the UN has been including fathers but it is only as supporters to women. They are saying that men need to take more responsibility for women’s health and while pregnant.
Comment by julie — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 2:31 pm
I presumed he is gay – or, at least homosexual, where there may likely be a difference. His view as he expressed it was the major point. Notably, where the electorate was my previous electorate and remains the electorate of my mother, Sam, who had the task as respectful of democracy, was given the task to get the Minister to reply. It, for the other points I raised, alluding to a corrupted practice, was and remains most important. So Sam’s sexuality, and more particularly as specific to the responsibility of office is absolutely inconsequential. Yet; if Sam should be “gay” then it leads to reason as to how that persuassion could have interferred with his responsibility to forward, and Chris Carter’s persuassion which we know to be homosexual to fail his obligation to the public by refusing to answer.
That is specific evidence of a corrupt practice under scrutiny, failing in its basic obligation to protect and preserve the public interest. The problem is as extraordinary as the femilycaught has been damaging.
The UNited Nation’s practice, at teh moment, if it is persuasive in the regions you suggest it adopts, is out of line with its own principles, protecting the world’s young for its protection, if it rejects observing these practices in corruption, before accepting to modify the behaviours that become manifest from that corruption.
What I said is that teh UN needs to show more discipline in effecting its recommendations. The UNCROC a.9 is being scoped by westernised(Westminister principled) authorities with an outright disregard to affect the foundation of those principles. This is serious as their is no more fundamental responsibility of an adult species than to protect its offspring from harm.
This observation is not hard to construct intellectually. What is difficult, as the woman on the Radio NZ National broadcast on Sunday afternoon, clearly (butt indirectly) deliniated is that the oppression against heterosexual naturality as a necessity of predominant lore, is to overarch that oppression in a manner that does not entangle the functional principality of everyone’s need to be. Wellington, we have a major problem.
It is a pity that those canvassed didn’t look at themselves long ago rather than just championing their way into wedlock abusing the functionality rule of freedom – singing and whistling tunefully: “If only I can oppress to be free”.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 3:01 pm
So Sam is gay. Great we are on the same path. He has lots of friends in the same position and they are all feeling the anti-male crisis. Did you spend time to understand him as you can speak to him for a lot longer than you can speak to Chris Carter.
So, what does Sam need. Hmmm. Have you ever considered what you are offering him or have you only wondered what he can give to you? How do you win people over Benjamin? How do you get what you want through helping others get what they want?
Wouldn’t it be a funny picture if the males that Chris is supposed to be representing went against his Labor Agenda? What would he do?
From l;listening to the people like you won mother who have been living in Waitakere for many years, Chris is well known as a teacher who helped young gay males at school who were ashamed of their homosexuality and were possibly (as we don’t know for certain) going to commit suicide. So he is a life saver to the gays.
Is there anyway you can get the gays on your side? Yes, of course. Scrap tells me they are already for men’s rights.
Comment by julie — Mon 10th September 2007 @ 3:36 pm
You don’t own the argument Julie. You speak as if you own the right to determine the principle of fairness without paying justifiable credence to the fact.
I appreciate that I have written a lot. Yet I write a lot because there is a repugnance for what it says, where what it probatively defines is that change in our societal function is not only a demand, the demand is because of a primary as causal necessity. The discussion is about function and not about want. You are traded prolifically in want. You are supporting in your sentiment that that adult want is more important than our natural obligation for the protection of sons and daughters. I suggest that you read what I said twice, before replying.
Then read back to the other post about your tinking about my view toward Sam or Chris. I don’t care if he, or they both are gay, or even if they may be homosexual together. That is his and their submission. If he or them both are not transgender then he, them both or all homosexuals has, do and have not got the legal function to support such behaviour where the presumption to such legal function is constituted from and on its own claim of discriminatory behaviour. In the case of fatherhood indirect and in the case of childhood direct.
You are exercising an argument over which you have no authority, yet without exploring properly why you can test that argument, applying subjective principle, such as that as “helping to reduce suicides” your view is principled to a condition of simply not listening. Your talking. Your not listening. Your writing. Your not reading.
Subjectively, I would argue that Chris, most particularly is acting as a cause in these suicides, “pretending” that it is a legally cconstiutable condition “to be gay” when the legal requirements of this determination have been and consisntly still lack of constiutional propriety.
Julie, I am asking you to stop laughing for a bit and start to listen. Do not delve into the submission of a problem because it seems all too hard to contemplate a change, but recognise first the demand of proceedural propriety as the constiution of any defence. Then ask me a question that doesn’t hook me into some pattern of behaviour that is convenient by which to subscribe.
Respectfully (from a dad)
(of a) fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 11th September 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Benjamin,
I am hoping to be supportive only from now on. It is up to men themselves how they do this. It is up to you. I don’t communicate with Sam or Chris any more. To me, they are males but then they have their own National movement.
I don’t mind you writing heaps. I am sorry for challenging it. You are doing something that you believe in. And that is all that really matters.
Every day, I learn. And it has taken me a while to get the gist of what is being told to me. But then all men and women are saying the same thing. This is for men to sort out. They can do it and they will do it.
Comment by julie — Tue 11th September 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Privacy at the IRD
Last year I went through a Child Support Administrative Review. During the process, details of my earnings and expenditure were passed to my ex-wife, who subsequently used these details to taunt me. I assumed that this was normal procedure. Was I wrong?
Comment by Pete — Tue 11th September 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Thank you Julie,
that was humble and I believe genuine. The difficulty that men are facing is how to coordinate themselves to be effective. The task before them has to be centered on the protection of sons and daughters as if those children could be their own. While men reject this notion giving patronage to their own specific demands as those requiring the first and greatest attention, they will not be productive. This loss in productivity has allowed an alternative value in and for sex to gain credibility to such a condition that it could challenge masculinity and expose its ability to function in its realm of primary necessity with dysfunction.
Sure, if the task is mine then I accept. The success will be if others males are prepaerd to make a loud enough and direct noise about the discrimination against children and indirect discrimination against fatherhood in order to be heard by those who exersice in corrupted power, so as not to have to listen to the truths and facts that are presented and evidentially supported.
Your doing fine. Don’t stop doing what you are doing and keep close to the message you have just told yourself and we will all be the beneficiaries of your progress.
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 12th September 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Thanx Benjamin,
I won’t forget.
Comment by julie — Wed 12th September 2007 @ 2:06 pm
sexual violence statistics,
1. integrity of statistics,
3. integrity of people asking for public money, value for money of the “domestic violence industry”
4. replying more to the philisophical frame of the collective commentaries
5. The real harm that feminism has done everyone is that there has never been an honest debate on any of the issues
8. Is it really Women’s Refuge funding time again?
13. It certainly look as if the criminalisation of male sexuality is in full swing.
14. Now I don’t know how “the latest police crime survey” measured that only 12% of sexual crimes are reported. It’s interesting that such figures (often much more outlandish than 12%) are never accompanied by any link or reference to the research paper or by any description of the research methodology.
15. where what I am describing is that the male’s sexual drive is dramatically different from that of a woman’s; and that it is that drive itself which is the target of those demanding it be pacified empowering a deminished masculinity simpler to control is from where the extreme feminist idealogue could and should be isolated.
16. The possibility of “women behaving badly” isn’t just a joke. When women have the opportunity, without fear of repercussion, then some behave as badly as many men do now. … Even now, women are committing a significant fraction of the sexual harassment. It is as important that we protect young boys and girls, from women, as from men.
17. To me this episode showed starkly how male-demonization has captured the belief system in western societies. In fact, this woman sexually assaulted a stranger but that didn’t even appear to be noticed.
19. the old hit and run that men could get away with, seems to have been replaced by women being able to get away with hit (get the guys ID) and run,
20. This is transgender. This is not homosexuality as it has been disguised and exploited.
21. Is Sam gay? Yes, the UN has been including fathers but it is only as supporters to women.
22. This observation is not hard to construct intellectually.
23. So, what does Sam need. Hmmm. Have you ever considered what you are offering him or have you only wondered what he can give to you?
24. You don’t own the argument Julie. You speak as if you own the right to determine the principle of fairness without paying justifiable credence to the fact.
25 Benjamin, I am hoping to be supportive only from now on. It is up to men themselves how they do this. It is up to you.
27. The difficulty that men are facing is how to coordinate themselves to be effective.
>
I hope we are finding clarity of ideas and some unity of purpose, so that our actions can add up to something?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 12th September 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Yes Murray, they can and we can effect and control our action.
I repeat more concisely; there are only two direct entries into disabling the injustices, in a manner which excuses the corrupt adminstrations from looking after their own, not owning the problems.
1. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
Through a friend and colleague of the fathers’ coalition we have presently (and it will gain emphasis over time) a challenge in on the judiciary where its practice can be isolated into a paragraph to have not been considerate of the object of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. This is a very good challenge. So that’s covered – noone needs to do anything other that to wait.
2. Through the Human Rights Commission recognise that the COC, giving licence to the authority, was made improperly directly discriminating against the child and indirectly discriminating against fatherhood.
This second mechanism requires body, as much as mind.
Bevan and I have done all the preliminary work necessary and he will be reading a letter today that is putting on direct and “serious” pressure to the Human Rights Chief Commmissioner.
Why we need body is because the Commission has already been exposed to be functional in the exercise of these discriminations, working directly against (and unethically) the child and indirectly against fatherhood.
The balking point of our movement’s history has been to give up when the task looks too daunting and way beyond our reach. But in the second option this is not so. The facts about which you/we all complain have been tabled before the authority, so we require two things from the group.
1. Be confident that you are going to win and there will be change.
2. Stand up against the indirect discrimination against fatherhood by allowing in this country the licence (COC) of entitlement for a single woman and a lesbian couple to have a child without provision to protect the child an associative development with the father.
The second option brings the first.
I repeat Bevan and I have done everything that you need to have had done.
So: how you can do two.
Optimally you woulld any listen to the Radion NZ National broadcast of Sunday afternoon and find out exactly why you will win presenting the argument. Yet, you do not need to do this to be effective. I ask you to be brave. It is a lot less daunting than us all having asked a young soldier to go over the top pof the hill into a cloud of orange smaoke and a hail of shrapnel.
Ring up the Commission and ask them if it is discriminatory against children to protect a single woman or a lesbian couple to have a child without making a legal provision of access and association withthe child’s father for that child born. Find out for yourself. It is very, very, very simple.
Now if you won’t do this, this is the really important bit – ask yourself WHY? and apply this to the argument. Then you will have your answer and that’s what’s been all added up.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 12th September 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Hello, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and
i was just curious if you get a lot of spam
comments? If so how do you stop it, any plugin or anything you can suggest?
I get so much lately it’s driving me mad so any assistance is very much appreciated.
Comment by Read the Full Write-up — Fri 30th November 2012 @ 11:55 am