First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

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

Fri 16th May 2008

Ministry of Male Denigration

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:25 pm

Gender-political corruption accompanies the favouritism, financial and employment corruption recently uncovered in the Immigration Service. On National Radio today Immigration lawyer Ms Olinda Woodroffe exposed a case in which the NZ Immigration Service in Samoa assisted a woman to remove her two young children to NZ without the father’s agreement. (Hear it here or if the link has expired request it from me.) This apparently was based on the woman’s claims of domestic violence for which no evidence existed such as previous police complaints, medical evidence or corroborative accounts. Once in NZ the Immigration Service here assisted the woman in applying for residency for herself and the two children, and obstructed the lawyer’s efforts to obtain information needed to represent the father in legal action to have his children returned.

The Immigration Service joins the many other government departments and indeed most political parties in parliament that operate as extensions of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

Thu 15th May 2008

Does anybody know?

Filed under: General — Eric @ 9:59 am

Does anybody know what percentage of protection orders issued are for the protection of men?

Also, of the protection orders issued to women, what percentage is for women without any children?

I suspect that not many women from a childless relationship apply for protection orders. Am I right on this?

I also suspect that it is women who are getting the vast majority of protection orders.

Tue 13th May 2008

Time for a boycott?

Filed under: Domestic Violence — Eric @ 5:40 pm

I am still finding the Family Court is very much tilted in favour of the woman. Consider protection orders. In Australia they expire after a year or two depending on type. Here they last forever unless you can persuade a judge to discharge it. I am making my third attempt in 5 years to get mine discharged. I don’t even see my ex or my kids. Whether the lunatics running the Family Court asylum consider this to be sufficient reason for a discharge remains to be seen.

Perhaps the best approach would be to try to get a men’s boycott of the Family Court going. Comments please.

Churches bash males now that they are under feminists control

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 9:09 am

Pastors, Don’t Use Mother’s Day to Bash Dads
By Paul Coughlin, Crosswalk Contributor

A learning season is upon us, and it’s worth our time to heed its teaching.

This lesson is the difference between how we handle Mother’s Day compared with Father’s Day in church. If it’s like in years past, it won’t be pretty.

This Sunday we will extol the value and benefit of motherhood, which is great. But in some churches, this will be done by degrading Christian husbands, which is not great. “Our pastor makes us husbands get on our knees on Mother’s Day and beg for forgiveness. I don’t want to do it again this year,” one reader tells me. Another writes, “Our minister makes husbands write on paper all the things we’ve done wrong. Then we’re suppose to give it to our wives and pledge that we won’t do them any more.”

Most preachers will not be this heavy-handed. They will wait till Father’s Day (Sunday, June 18) to tell men how to be better fathers. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this message when taken as an isolated event. But when compared with Mother’s Day, we’ll discover that for some reason many ministers believe that fathers need correction on Father’s Day (and Mother’s Day) but women don’t. Why this double-standard?

Because much of the church sees men as a problem to be fixed when compared to women, not a gender to be appreciated. There’s prejudice and bigotry against a man’s nature in too many churches, Christian publishing, and on Christian radio (I was a program director of a Christian radio station – I
was part of the problem too), all of which have been beating men up for decades.

For example,
(more…)

Thu 8th May 2008

Queen Street march for Toran Henry

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Mike @ 10:33 pm

What follows is a verbatim copy of a letter sent by Toran’s mother to Polly Gillespie at the ZM radio station. I feel it deserves as much attention as it can possibly receive, so please read on and consider going along if you are able to do so.

From: Maria Bradshaw
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:50 AM
To: Polly Gillespie
Subject: Toran Henry

Hi Polly

I’m Maria Bradshaw, the mother of the 17 year old boy Toran Henry who committed suicide nearly 4 weeks ago.

You may have seen in the news that I found my baby hanging in our garage after he had been let down by his school and told by mental health services that he should take prozac and could drink alcohol in the weekends. (more…)

Mon 5th May 2008

Expose the Child Holocaust

Filed under: Sex Abuse / CYF — Jim Bagnall @ 2:04 pm

Hello Heroes of the ‘JUSTICE SYSTEM’

Hello Fathers (Jews) of the Holocaust

300,000 of Your children are in mini orphanages called Solo parent homes (IRD Stats)

If you can document false allegations, lies and perjury that have happened to you and your children in this ‘Court system’ and you would be willing to appear on TV please email me, including only your name and telephone number and a brief description of the allegations and documentation.

Keep in simple!! PLEASE!!

To [email protected]

Thanking you in advance

Sincerely
Jim Bagnall (Coalition of Fathers)

Sun 4th May 2008

Child Support Reality TV

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 11:19 am

Its not often that I am surprised by the next attack on Dads who are in debt for child support. I guess it never occurred to me that Fox TV would create a Child Support Reality TV show.

‘Bad Dads’ Reality TV Show Stirs Controversy
May 02, 2008 03:54 PM ET | Adam Voiland | Permanent Link

This week, I received an intriguing E-mail from Glenn Sacks, a men’s advocate and journalist, crying foul about the possibility that a reality show called Bad Dads might air on Fox. The show’s producers and officials from the National Child Support Center plan to hunt down deadbeat dads and humiliate them into paying child support with the cameras running, according to an article first published in the Hollywood Reporter and then by Reuters, which calls the concept “ambush reality TV–but for a noble cause.”

No doubt Judith Collins is negotiating for the New Zealand Rights for the show. Don’t worry, Peter , I’ll get into bed with any political party, Dunne will probably fund IRD to run a reality TV Child Tax show here.

Squads of Child Tax Police (aka IRD Officials) hunting down Parents (mostly Dads) who owe Child Tax. The loonies (officials and Families Commission) are already running the asylum, designing policy with a model is seriously flawed. The lunatics are indoctrinated with an organisational culture that focuses on collecting money not supporting children. Watch the research results and what they suggest and get ready for Reality Child Support TV

Regards
Scrap

Fri 2nd May 2008

Union of Fathers (Wellington) Meeting 6 May 2008

Filed under: General — allan harvey @ 12:58 am

Union of Fathers is a support group for parents having issues in the Family Court. We can help advise you about parenting plans, domestic violence accusations, child support and self-representation.
Our next meeting is 7:30pm Tuesday evening at Johnsonville Community Centre. You can get more information at www.uof.org.nz or by phoning 0508 CallDad (0508 2255323).
Allan Harvey (027 2420112)

Thu 1st May 2008

Auckland Father and Child Trust Meeting this Monday night

Filed under: Events — Brendon Smith @ 6:01 pm

Hello Team,

Our third Auckland Father and Child Trust Meeting is on this Monday night, 7pm at the Onehunga Community Center, 83 Church Street, by the library.

Plus, we are helping to host a ‘Jingle and Jive’ session each Monday, starting at 11.30 am, low cost and very ‘Dad Friendly’, we will be there, stay for a coffee and catchup with other ‘at home’ dads of toddlers!

At our meeting we hope to see a few new members, discuss a proposed Auckland Committee Member Guideline and Auckland Trust Strategy.

We also hope to organise a ‘launch’ for the New Babies Edition, due for around 15th May, we look forward to any ideas members bring along!

We hope to see you there, or feel free to pass this on to anyone keen! 

Best regards,
Brendon Smith
09 525 1690
021 892 980

Rape – radio talkback on the Layton Smith show

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Julie @ 11:18 am

I drove half way to work this morning when I heard a talk back issue on the National Radio Station about rape and the new laws where when a woman drinks she is raped. There will be no consideration for the man. None what so ever. Not one thing he says will be relevant. It is the new law. And very specific.

I did a U turn and came home. Phoned the National radio station and now they will be phoning me back after the 11am news because I will be speaking for some time. Layton is passionate about this.

I was shaking holding the phone. This is the first time I have been on radio and I am collecting my thoughts. I hope my voice comes over calm and not nervous.

I know so much about this because of men’s sites like this and from finding out how NZ works as was recommended by an overseas man. I have already had my arguments with the new National Rape collective. Not one man on the board. Not one men’s group is having a say.

Australian Law Society kicked up a stink over this last year.

Wish me luck or add something I should say or try and be a part of the talk back. Our country is a sleep to what is going on.

Wed 30th April 2008

Finally… but can I win?

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Forgotten Father @ 2:00 pm

I am a week away from what will hopefully be the conclusion of a 5 year process for shared care of my children. Due to the time it has taken to get this far two of my four children are now over 16 and have lost the extra time they could have spent with me if the Family Court had been more attentive to me case. I am representing myself and have made numerous complaints about the time it has taken from two bouts of counselling to two bouts of mediation to two psychologists reports to the delay of the final hearing due to the unavailability of the lawyer for child and the psychologist. Apparently according to various people the delays are unavoidable and due in part to my refusals to certain requests i.e. psychologist reports. I have tried every avenue to try and amicably come to an agreement but have been knocked back at every stage. I currently have the two children under 16, 5 days a fortnight and I was willing prior to a full hearing to accept one extra day but in her wisdom my ex decided she wants what she has and is not willing to accept anything less. So my original application at the full hearing will be for 50/50 shared care. I have had a protection order against me strongly dismissed for wasting the courts time and there are no reasons as to why I should be denied 50/50 except that my ex maintains that this is what my children want. However they are telling me something completely different and have told the psychologist and their lawyer the same thing. Why then do a have this knot in my stomach like I know the result will not go my way. From what I have read on this site and others the Family Court remains heavily in favour of the mother and I am afraid the same will apply to me despite the fact that I offer my children so much more than their mother can. I do not wish to have more time than 50/50 nor discourage the children’s relationship with their mother but I am fully aware that I will somehow be portrayed in a bad light by my ex’s lawyer who by the way is being paid for by legal aid. I am trying to put everything together to make my case as strong as I can. I do feel a little underprepared in relation to precedents for shared care and non-removal (ex has discussed with the children about moving) as well as not knowing how to make submissions at the end of the hearing. Any advice, contributions, references to material I can use would be very helpful at this stage. Also does anyone know what my chances of having my current wife approved as a Lay Assistant. Up until now I have felt reasonably confident of success but as I get closer nervousness prevails. What are my chances of actually getting a judgement at the hearing or will my case drag on for longer and put in jeopardy the extra time I could be spending with my youngest children? I am disgusted about how long it has taken to get this far and just want it to end.

Mon 28th April 2008

Boys and education

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 6:20 pm

As a mother and as a woman who has had the privilege to live in the great time of feminist rulership I thought that since feminism was about equality my concerns for our sons would have been accepted, which they have been; and work would be done to give our sons fair treatment, which unfortunately is a whole other matter.

Never did I realise that being for equal rights as a female was to be non equal rights for my sons. I had no idea that I had signed up for an opposite rulership that I had been opposed of.

I find in the women’s groups that there is an attitude that men must fight as hard as women if not harder to gain equality to women. I find that in the funding sector male is not even an option. You don’t have a box to ask for funding that says male. But you have one that says female. Or disability or gay/lesbian or elderly or even child which is up to the age of 12 for a male.

You see, a male child is not considered a child after the age of 12. He is then considered a man because he has testosterone. Testosterone is the enemy of feminism. Gosh, throw that by me again. hehehe. But seriously, I am not joking you.

I was shocked to learn that under the human Rights Commission, men do not have rights. So every male child over 12 does not have rights. You see, men never did have rights. Only responsibilities. Us females started rights. But our own female leaders do not want to give rights to men nor our sons.

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom’
21/04/2008

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom because government policies focus on the education standards of boys, a report claims. A “significant proportion” of girls are struggling to read but many are not getting enough help, it is claimed.

About a quarter define themselves as “non-readers” because they find books boring and fear being labelled a “geek”. They are also less likely to get encouragement from family members to pick up a novel at home.

A study by the National Literacy Trust, a reading charity, says many young girls were “in danger of being overlooked by current policy drives”.

At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom. They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree.

A series of reforms have been aimed at boys to address the imbalance. This includes additional cash to buy books for boys. But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives.

link

This is what we are up against to give our sons a fair go in education. It is a mountain that few of us even realised. But it exists because women gained power and through women studies at University level and millions of dollars in funding, we grew a movement of hate for our own sons without even knowing it.

Worthwhile link to read

Thu 24th April 2008

Open Letter to the Public

Filed under: General — sonnyking @ 9:50 pm

I wanted the local newspaper to publish the following letter. I was hoping that some of the public in the small town we live in would come forward for the sake of X (child), but unfortunately the newspaper would not publish; their excuse, the public would have trouble understanding the letter.

Open Letter to the Public
I would like to commend a member of our valued community.

She deserves an Oscar for a most outstanding seven year performance. One I have been privileged to view and experience for six years. (more…)

Wed 23rd April 2008

Gay pride bans mum and dad in classroom

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 5:25 am

Daily Telegraph (Australia) April 17, 2008
Teachers are being urged to stop using terms such as husband and wife when addressing students or families under a major anti-homophobia push in schools. The terms boyfriend, girlfriend and spouse are also on the banned list – to be replaced by the generic “partner” – in changes sought by the gay lobby aimed at reducing discrimination in classrooms. (more…)

Tue 22nd April 2008

Anti-Smacking Law Tragic Failure as Child Abuse Death Rate Continues

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 9:50 pm

Family First NZ says that the announcement of the death of three-year-old Auckland toddler Dylan Rimoni being treated as a homicide means that the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law.

“While good families are being investigated and thrown under suspicion because of the extremist anti-smacking law pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford, child abuse has continued at the same rate and the same old underlying issues of drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown and dysfunction continue to be ignored,”? says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. (more…)

Brain-washed Kids, Crazy Exes, and FC.

Filed under: General — mother love @ 1:21 am

I am 35yrs old ive seen alot in my time booze,drugs,gangs etc. I’d crossed paths with some of the most notorious gang members and the most hardened criminals done some things im ashamed to admit but i faced those demons and turned my life around i met my husband 6yrs ago had 2 more children and continued to raise my 4 we have 6 kiddies living with us my husband has contact with his two, 9yrs and 12yrs. When my husband and i met, his partner had left him for the third time, taking their children, alcohol was a contributing factor to the breakdown in their relationship on both parts, from that day she has taunted him, power tripping in knowing she had something he wanted but could not have, she stated in numerous emails “you will never see these children unless i say so”. (more…)

Mon 21st April 2008

Women have a law unto their own which the Family Court supports!

Filed under: General — sonnyking @ 11:18 pm

Judge Boshier stated in his presentation in Washington DC at the Capitol Hilton on June 1 2007:

…. It is a criminal offence to take a child from New Zealand knowing that there is an order giving day-to-day care or contact to another person, or knowing proceedings are pending or about to be commenced in respect of the child. There is a maximum fine of $2500 or a term of imprisonment of up to three months.[18] It is also a criminal offence to breach a parenting order.[19] Because these offences carry the possibility of imprisonment, Police can arrest any person committing such as offence without a warrant.[20] A person can thus be physically stopped from boarding a plane, for example, where there is no order preventing removal but leaving the country would breach a parenting order.

It is no defence that the person removing the child has rights of day-to-day care or contact, for parental responsibility is to be jointly exercised, and one parent cannot deprive the other parent their parental rights and responsibilities. This section applies to any person who takes a child. It is not specific to parents.

Apparently this only applies to men, fathers. Women can take their child out of the country, even if they state it is for a holiday, while court proceedings are pending, while their absence stops the person, i.e. the father, having contact with the child. Women are allowed to breach a parenting order. So what is the point of a parenting order in the first place and why aren’t the courts following what the Family Court Judge is stating. Are women above the Family Court? (more…)

Sun 20th April 2008

Academics and Lawyers attack changes to Aussie Child Support System

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:19 pm

Divorced from wealth – The Sydney Morning Herald – 19 April 2008.

The attack on the Australian Child Support changes continues:

“For the next generation of single women, it is about to get worse. Lawyers and social researchers believe changes to the child support scheme which come into force midyear will leave about 60 per cent of single mothers worse off than before. Fathers, in particular wealthy fathers, they say, will pocket the windfall.”

This is another example of a coordinated and orchestrated attack on the Australian changes to the Child Support Act.

“Dr Baldry also points to regime changes under the Howard government that are now starting to bite: welfare-to-work policies that penalised single mothers, and changes to child custody laws that introduced a presumption of shared care – even where there had been a history of violence.

She says it is not surprising that more middle-class women are relying on charities to supplement their weekly food bill.”

Peter Rabbit (Dunne) is living in a fairytale land. He has not delivered and that failure to deliver shows how much United Future cares about separated families!

Peter needs to ensure that stake holders are engaged as he promised. Relying on focus groups to create a child support position is inherently likely to produce a worse result for kiwi kids and parents .

Peter Rabbit has let loose officials to create a child support position and proposed methodology. I call it letting the loonies run the asylum

This approach to child tax collection , let the officials (Inland Revenue and Families Commission ) decide does not adress the fundemental flaws found in % of income model.

The child support Act 1991 is fundamentally flawed and no amount of tinkering is going to fix it.

RegardsScrap

Fri 18th April 2008

Inviting Media to Report on Family Court Cases

Filed under: Law & Courts — nzleagle @ 4:18 am

Just looking on Google news, searching for “Family Court” and all I can find, is regarding the parental tests that was announced last month, and a thing on a family of 15 living in the bush.

Has anyone tried to invite the media to their Family Court hearing? 

What would be the process of doing this?

The Family Court definitely needs more media attention in the smaller cases, that don’t particularity mean anything to anyone, but without this attention there will continue to be a gender bias and secrecy in court.

Thu 17th April 2008

Avoid Relationship Services

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 3:54 pm

I issue a general warning to avoid Relationship Services. I had an unpleasant experience with a fat feminasty counsellor there who would or could not answer clearly my questions about the circumstances in which she would breach confidentiality. She then accused me of being a controlling male abuser (although no assessment or information about me had even taken place) and refused to work further with me and my ex. This was in counselling funded by the Family Court.

Since then I have had several clients who approached Relationship Services in good faith but had confidentiality breached even though there was no imminent danger to anyone. The Tauranga branch seems more interested in being social police aiming to prosecute men for anything they might ever have done wrong, than in helping their clients.

Tue 15th April 2008

Advocate asks Govt to register ‘wife-bashers’

Filed under: General — UF @ 11:21 am

Auckland’s domestic violence victim support agency wants a national register of the most violent offenders to be set up so new partners can be warned about dangerous men.

Preventing Violence in the Home director Jane Drumm told a child abuse conference in Manukau yesterday that the safety of women and children should override the privacy of offenders.

Bank of NZ “Get Organized” Campaign

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:36 am

My letter today to the “Get Organized” Campaign. I will direct the letter to all of the sponsors of this campaign.

“While I congratulate your efforts to reduce domestic violence, I note that your information entitled “The Numbers” is biased and sexist. You give information about how many women are killed by their (ex) partners but no information about violence against men. You will find that, although the number of murdered men by intimate partners is lower at about one quarter of the female rate, it is still significant. Further, men are much more often than women the victims of murder and other violence in society generally. To ignore the victimization of men either at the hands of women or the small proportion of other men who would commit such violence, is typical of male-denigration in the feminist era.

Would you publish information only about pakeha victimization by Maori violent offenders? No, because that would be blatantely racist. However, the imbalance between Maori and Pakeha violent crime is greater than the imbalance between male and female domestic violence.

When state-sanctioned forms of domestic violence are counted (e.g. evicting men from their homes in only the clothes on their back purely on the basis of a woman’s unsubstantiated allegations under the DVA, denying children adequate relationships with their fathers), then the imbalance between male and female domestic violence becomes even smaller.

It is time for domestic violence campaigns and services to become honest and to stop ignoring almost half the problem.”

Mon 14th April 2008

Prostitution in the PC (politically conformist) era

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 2:26 pm

FYI, my other email today:

Dear Morning Report Team

Your article this morning entitled “Campaign to Legalize Prostitution in the UK” was disappointing. The interviewer blithely accepted everything the interviewees claimed and treated an important issue as if covering a light-hearted school play.

When interviewee “Shirley” referred to a Nevada brothel she had visited as a “prison”, no challenging question ensued such as “Were the prostitutes there free to stay or leave?”.

When Shirley claimed NZ brothels were better for protecting the women, no question ensued about protection for the clients. A little further exploration would have highlighted the fact that although NZ legislation includes rudimentary provisions to protect the physical health of clients, to protect the reputation of particular streets or areas in the community and to limit the type of advertising brothels can undertake, there is no requirement for NZ prostitutes to operate according to a code of ethics and barely any attention is paid to the needs and safety of the consumer. That’s because the NZ legislation was based on feminist priorities and beliefs that prostitutes are exploited victims forced into their meagre $150 to $500-an-hour trade through patriarchy.

When Shirley then claimed that the NZ system was safer for the community and clients, no question ensued to require her to explain how that could be so.

In New Zealand, health and helping practitioners are legally required to observe a raft of ethical practice rules in order to protect their clients from them. However, in the case of prostitutes (who earn as much as most professionals, who become aware through their service of intimate personal information about their clients and who are unlikely to be motivated by the pro-social aims typical in most helping professionals), no such protection for clients is in place. Prostitutes were legalized (which I support) and given relatively open slather to push their particular vice in society (which I don’t support). Why did NZ not take the opportunity to impose some ethical rules on prostitutes, for example to protect marriages and families, to discourage extortion, to ensure that prostitution was made fully accountable according to consumer protection laws, to establish a user-friendly and confidential complaint process regarding inadequate or unethical services, and so forth?

It would have been interesting to hear the same good journalism on this topic evident in most other articles in your otherwise excellent show. Unfortunately, it seems that the P.C. (politically conformist) line is usually taken with any issues of relevance to feminists and their propaganda.

Hans Laven

Cervical Cancer Immunization

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 1:13 pm

FYI, my email today to the Auckland Women’s Health Council:

Dear Auckland Women’s Health Council

Your representative Linda Williams stated today in an interview on “Nine to Noon”, National Radio, that it would be “sexist” to immunize only girls against cervical cancer and that if girls were to be immunized then so should boys because they carried the virus associated with cervical cancer. She then raised many concerns about the risks of implementing vaccinations without enough knowledge about possible side effects, and the incomplete long-term follow-up data in the research used to advocate a roll-out of this vaccine.

Ms Williams acknowledged that boys do not suffer from cervical cancer, and admitted in a somewhat fudging manner that no research had been completed on the effect of the vaccine on boys. (more…)

Wed 9th April 2008

ALAC Advertisements Are Sexist

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:22 pm

FYI, my email to ALAC today. I also sent an email to National Radio expressing disappointment that in its interviews about all kinds of aspects of these ads, nothing was said about their glaring sexism.

Dear ALAC,

I am not bothered by the shocking nature of your latest television advertisements, and I commend your aims. However, I am deeply concerned about the anti-male sexism your advertisements are spreading.

In the latest series of ads, the two featuring males as leading characters both involve harm being done by the men to others, while the one featuring a woman involves her putting herself into a vulnerable position and then being violently sexually assaulted by a male. My recollection of your previous series of tv ads was that they showed males embarrassing and letting down other people, while the one featuring a woman only showed her feeling embarrassed about her own drinking. The underlying misinformation throughout your advertisements is that only men do harm to others and women are victims. (more…)

Skip to toolbar