Cooperation Among Men?
Occasionally I wonder if there might be some lack of unity among men in NZ, with respect to protecting their collective interests?
By querying that, I am not implying that men should “fight” against women as a total group. (We would lose if we tried, due to the large amount of fraternising with the enemy.)
I see it as working together might yield a much larger pie, not a zero sum game.
Anyway, the majority of NZers do work together, happily and successfully.
It is the fairly large minority, who have serious mental health problems, who are unable to cooperate and enjoy the best that nature can offer all of us. (Like myself, of course.) These same mental health problems impact onto children of separated parents. Despite the words of the Care of Children Act 2004, the management by familycaught$ often enhances these problems’ negative impacts onto children, to maximise legal worker’s paramount financial interests.
Of course The Family Mangle works so that it only takes one party to sustain a legal action through the caught$, or put more basically, only one party needs to have stability or at times mental health issues, to drag the other into that game. (Not even a zero sum game, but more like dead loss game.)
If men were to take longer than women took to get the women’s movement together, then men would have to be a bit stupid?
Especially as we have available on a plate, the methods that the women’s movement used, to bring women together and create mutual understanding.
Consciousness Raising from Wikipedia
Reading that article, reinforces that our unity and mutual understanding have gone backwards, in the last 10 years.
In my opinion, we need to understand the problems that give us heartbreak and identify constructive options for solving them. These solutions must be sensibly attractive to women too, or they will remain unimplemented ideas.
Some of the suggestions that have been made about child custody dispute management by the men’s movement, are now being tidily documented in textbooks, by respected UK and USA academics. With driving these ideas through familycaught$, maybe fathers could actually act to protect our children? Constructive change might be in the wind? doG, I hope so!
So, I suggest less infighting and more mutual discussion and support of initiatives.
yes murray,
a review of the achievements in collaboration by NZ Mens/dads support groups would take 5min. and have 3 pages.
a combination of reasons come to mind.. 1. lack of money
2. lack of men with committee/board experience and ambition
3. the struggle for national or public recognition and how that makes each group/leader strive for their own press/social media presence…
4. that each of our groups has a leader with a mission to be the leader, working together diminishes their chance of fame and heroism for being the guy who fought back/won..
5. the presence of a few seemingly angry/MH Issues dad who gets us all labelled angry..
6. The absence of a stable woman spokeperson to get some of our points across nicely.
I’m keen to see this discussion evolve into what has been done that worked, what no, what next…??
Comment by realkiwi — Mon 8th January 2018 @ 1:01 pm
#1 It would appear you haven’t come across these things called Feministso.
They have different ideas, and hold the opinion that since you won’t be here, what you think doesn’t matter.
Some of them do have a plan beyond self entitlement.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 9th January 2018 @ 8:54 am
I wonder if item 4 on realkiwi’s list isn’t of more significance.
I am not convinced money has much to do with lack of traction.
If we are committed we give time, and resources.
Supporting the work of others, encouraging others, befriending is key.
I am not quite sure what Bevan is saying with feministo.
Many more women are supportive of our work than oppose us.
We get support, encouragement and referrals from many women’s groups (including refuge).
If he is referring to the white knight/ribbon lobby maybe they are an impediment but most can be encouraged to see wider perspectives even if they still choose to focus on just part of the picture. Those who “have different ideas” and are not open to dialogue we can just ignore.
Those groups who have been more successful know that it takes a lot of work, often lonely work.
Comment by allan harvey — Tue 9th January 2018 @ 9:49 am
Really?
The period of success that Union of Fathers did enjoy was due to the spend achieved by its main backers and membership. If one person had fully financed that period of activity it would have been a multi-million dollar undertaking.
It was not charitably funded other than by a few people in the leadership.
In the end UOF was destroyed by the a few people in the background who were motivated by the possibility of turning the organisation’s affairs into their own financial gain.
Outside of that, there was a conspiracy to financially disable or intimidate those members who had the capacity to drive anything else forward.
The remnants, who generally lacked any degree of financial wellbeing (struggling to make ends meet and little spare time) found that without the structure that had previously existed in UOF they could do little more than protest outside judges houses.
The PC organisations, (or individuals) which as I see above still can’t acknowledge their own judgmental arogance have a codependency with the state in terms of funding and image.
Might have gone a little over the 5 mins, but at least we saved two sheets of paper.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 10th January 2018 @ 9:16 am
We are not cohesive,
We are not organised
We are apathetic
We are not United, yet we have the same experiences.
We must push back.
Family court bulls hit was not a policy consideration for any political party in the recent election.
Nor were:
Law society rubbish self policing of its members
The LCRO ‘so inability to meet statuary requirements
The judicial selection process
The judicial conduct commissioner complaints process and the selection process.
Refer to the comments from Judge Binney on prime time TV really The David Bain Compensation documentary. He is a highly regarded international judge and he did not mince his words when describing aspects of our system and process. Many can’t and don’t have confidence in the justice system in our country and at an international level.
Comment by Bradley Petherick — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 12:37 am
This would likely be the central point.
Each experience is so unique and overwhelming that individuals cannot find commonality as they cannot relate their experience to anothers.
In turn the desired resolutions can also be unique to an individual, sometimes unacceptable to another, and a requirement of variable sizes.
Would be leaders who relate to the late Jim Bagnall’s street theatre as a joke and a way to make us laugh show their shallow comprehension of the complexity of the situation in bringing men of the same level and of the different levels together.
What is common is the emotional experience rather than the situation, so you have another group of Wallies, doing the get in touch with your feelings stuff. While a I do appreciate this may help some individuals and even save lives, it is not the way most men operate.
We have a problem we find a solution. But watch out for the greedy, the corrupt, the selfish, the power hungry mongrels and other individuals who will stand behind you only so they can shoot you in the back.
It’s not an easy road to walk.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 5:14 am
#6 That’s probably going to get up a few people’s noses but there won’t be any progress until the difficulties are understood.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 5:49 am
Likely, but when there is an absence of political support, or naivety in the belief that political support might or should exist, then there is a tendency for any group to splinter depending on the acceptance or rejection of a political analysis.
This suits politicians just fine, they love to be needed but show any degree of cohesion and they will either want to run the game to get the vote or kill the threat to their position.
It’s a tricky one.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 5:58 am
The old saying that men have:
“Women, you can’t live with them, you can’t live without them.”
Is worth some thought. Men think collectively, regardless of the difficulties.
But as with these female marches that are rising up in America, we see Feminists inspiring young girls to only think of themselves and the child they might aquire.
That is a much more simplistic formula to gain collective action but driven by the deep-seated hate of a few leaders.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 8:05 am
@9 Adding to that, the men that do rise up, and rightfully so, are wrongfully seen as the haters.
Does society not understand this, or not want to understand it, as long as it doesn’t affect them personally?
Comment by Downunder — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 8:13 am
Men can’t explain the contrary point of view.
Women (in relation to these marches) were doing the same thing during the collapse of Rome as they are in America now.
The patriarchy as we’re so often acused of was a result (for us generally) from the conversion of England to Christianity around 600 AD.
If there is some middle ground to Religion and failure, Feminism isn’t happy to settle there.
Sooner or later you have to make up your mind which side you’re on.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 9:25 am
At a time when the world was dark and scary I met Murray.
He woke me up to the reality of my situation and the consequences of the path I was engaged in.
I had spent over ten years in the family court witnessing my life being ripped to shreds, thread by thread. And yet I fought, tooth and nail, and steadily to regain my sanity within, knowing that what i was fighting for was right and fair. And it was no less than my children’s rights to have both mom and dad in their lives.
His help and dedication to helping me taught me more about compassion and empathy and selfless dedication than all the books of religion I have read all my life.
The one main thing he said and repeated and that drove me mad for so long was: “You got to look after your mental and psychological health.”
It was like a mantra I could no longer bear to hear lest I blew up and told him to F off.
But I kept through with him because I needed him. And he had other things to say that I could grasp. And I had been dropped kicked by everyone and anyone. But when these words finally did hit home; they made all the sense in the world.
Thanks Murray.
Yes there are feminists and they work together but they cannot and will not prevail for as long as we can retain our unity among men.
I remember a kid I was trying to help once. After explaining to him what other men had gone through, similar to his plea, hoping it would help him understand how serious his situation was, I was very saddened to hear him say, “what a bunch of loosers… I am not them!”
Now he has become another leaf on the book of denial, self abuse, drugs and alcohol just to cope with a reality he cannot accept. And worse, he has shacked up with another woman, just the same as the one that destroyed his life and took his kids from him.
So history is likely to repeat itself – ad infinitum
And now he wonders whether they were his kids at all…
So I agree with @1 –
WE men need cooperation. WE are not built for cooperation. We are built for competition and that is our downfall. And until we can put our competitiveness apart and look to build a better world for our children and set our differences aside without seeking to profit by our actions, the feminist world and agenda we live in will pick us apart one by one and until there is no one left to stand.
The problem we have is men plea is not known and those interested into changing anything are wounded. ( I used castrated before:-). But that is what it is. Wounded and traumatised we cannot be of any good to anyone. All we can do is survive. One day at a time. No more.
Funnily enough, there is an entire army of us.
Comment by WrongGender — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 9:39 am
@12 thanks for your comment.
These are the stories we heard so often within UOF.
Typical of the cooperation we had.
Likewise we said,
“Get their head straight.”
“A place to live.”
“Look after their job.”
So much can be achieved with help and reassurance often better than what people call support when men value their independence.
To rebuilt what was so callously destroyed will take effort.
We started with 20 good men in a room. It’s no small task for those that are willing to give it a go.
It’s been done before so you know it can be done again.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 22nd January 2018 @ 11:09 am
Dear WrongGender, thank you for your comments.
UOF is referred to above. I know of many, many helping relationships carried out through UOF’s encouragement and also some outside of UOF. As Bevan comments above, these stories are little known outside of men’s movement and most not well known inside it either.
Perhaps the saddest aspect is that so few of the people who received help, continue in the movement and pass it forward.
I hope that the successes of the past are built upon and not forgotten.
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 23rd January 2018 @ 9:46 pm
The public admission by Judge Dougue in 2004 that the Family Court was a ‘failed experiment’ was brought about by the existence and activities of UOF.
If you look back to the Herald article, you will see we raised the issue of what a decade later is now referred to as child poverty.
But you’re right Murray, it’s an untold story and why many people didn’t stay?
For many people they didn’t need help, they simply needed the problem to cease to exist.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 24th January 2018 @ 7:08 am
This article which talks about the relationships of a Labour government and control, could equally apply to men.
There is I think a falacy across the PC divide in the ‘men’s movement’ that we need a white lady to ride to the rescue, or as RealKiwi says, speak on our behalf.
That attitude is like a flat tyre – it won’t get you far until you change it. But in the age of supposed equality we do need women to wake up, speak up, and tell their idiots to sit down and shut up.
While life is too convenient women have a tendency to think only about themselves.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 24th January 2018 @ 7:36 am
child poverty – usually discussed in terms of disposable income, but the poverty that damages the quality of our children’s upbringing [and in many cases comes close to destroying ] is having a good quality relationship with both parents and their wider families. This underlies children growing up with good mental health.
The Guardianship Act 1968 did not spell out in black and white text that good quality relationships are an essential part of developing children. Did it need to be spelled out in black and white?
The Care of Children Act 2004 did spell this out in black and white printed text, but the judges never took this ethic on board, or at best only occasionally and very erratically. Talked about, but with negligible influence on their decisions, which is the only aspect that impacts onto the children’s lives.
In the same way that the legal worker$ accused fathers of having egos, their egos always formed a nearly impenetrable barrier to changing their earlier decisions, even in the face of accumulating evidence of harms. Very little more than bullying under cover of secrecy.
The right amount of ego is essential to parenting and protecting children, both by parents and legal worker$.
The damage being done to children shows up in poor school performance of the lowest 30% of children. This later flows on into workplace performance and prison costs and injuries done by prisoners.
The familycaught$ legal worker’s decisions probably drives half of that problem, maybe more than half?. Forgive them Lord, for they DO know [the harm] that they are doing.
Fixing it is far, far cheaper than continuing with an abusive and advantage taking familycaught$ system.
Also, then our children can enjoy lives, not unnecessarily damaged.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 24th January 2018 @ 9:18 am
There is cooperation amongst men.
Equally as amazing is Stuff published this.
No comments section.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/100773610/heartbroken-dad-drops-fight-for-more-time-with-his-children
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 24th January 2018 @ 12:12 pm
After reading article posted by @18,
It reminded me of my own saga… still unfolding.
Sadly, it was all my own doing.
Scenario for me was without notices
The kids go to mom for a set # of days, or for an afternoon catchup.
And they do not return.
Instead, a without notice is served through my lawyer.
Cyfs gets involved, police gets involved, psych possibly…
____Moral ____
_ do not have a lawyer on the record
_ Do not accept service by email or by mail or by phone.
____END MORAL___
I am on an automatic stand down.
Indefinitely…
One day turns into a week.
A week is followed by two more before I can urgently get a hearing.
(usually a conference with the only purpose to set a time and date for a hearing, if ever}.
They expect lawyers to mediate the situation and reach a resolution IN THE INTERIM.
This is the trap many male fall into.
Your children have been legally kidnapped.
And to see them again, you have to either accept supervised visitation on her terms
or wait…………………..
….wait…..
……….wait.
……………..
….wait……………….
……………………. and wait …
Most men compromise before the hearing because they want to see their kids.
They sign an agreement and thus relinquish all rights both on their behalf and their chidren’s.
If they do not, yet.
Then they do at the hearing.
Judge enters and Lawyer for child (if not on your side) says:
“This is a really complicated and complex case your honor,
mother says this…
father contests…
Children’s views are such….
A psych report may be needed…
If this matter needs to proceed to a substantial hearing…
but it will cause delays… at least 12 weeks to obtain one…
And there may be difficulties since mother states….
Court staff are overbooked…
WE are nearing the season’s holidays…
…
”
Judge then repeats and concurs with Lawyer for child recitation.
And suggests that the party be given 15mns to 30 mins reset
Whilst they work on a solution in regards to contact during INTERIM.
Mother and child through lawyer for child dictate the terms of engagement,
“usually 1 hour a week supervised”
Lawyer for father tells father:
“Look, take it.”
At least you get to see your kids…
By the time we get to a hearing, it will be six months…
After three weeks, if all goes well, come back to me and will seek to increase it…
But in the mean time, your kids are your priority. Enjoy the time you have with them and don’t…
… Don’t shower them or let them sleep in your bed or hug them (sexual allegations)
… Don’t tell them off (emotional and psychological abuse)
… Don’t talk to them about the court stuff (Not shielding the children – emotional abuse)
… Buy them presents and let them be your parent for a while.
—Don’t …
—Don’t …
and so on and so- basically you hAVE BEEN MOVED INTO THE GLASS HOUSE.”
”
MOST MALES FALL THEN
AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END.
—-
As soon as you sign the parenting agreement;
The judge will congratulate you on your child focused approach.
HE”SHE will Put your parental rights on hold __INDEFINITELY___
Replace it with the signed agreement.
And turn you into a ghost in your child’s life.
Comment by WrongGender — Wed 31st January 2018 @ 12:43 pm
It’s easier to break the man than pacify the sick woman and the children end up the dummies in the process.
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 1st February 2018 @ 9:55 am
19, Yes that’s a realistic summary. MG-TOW is the best antidote for men in our sick feminist society.
Those that profit from these crimes against our men and children deserve very little sleep.
Comment by voices back from the bush. — Thu 1st February 2018 @ 3:24 pm
The ethos of the Family Court.
It is a founding hallmark of the New Zealand Family Court system that parties are encouraged to reach their own agreements. The 1978 Royal Commission Report envisaged a main conciliation branch of the Family Court with counselling and mediation as the primary means for resolving cases.14 The central purpose of the Family Court was to be the provision of a non-adversarial method of settling disputes and the aim was to avoid recourse to trial.
That’s empowerment for all.
Comment by mama — Tue 10th July 2018 @ 7:17 pm