Vivienne Crawshaw has ended her series of articles in the Herald about the NZ Family Court.
Two years of big advances in family law

It would be an interesting exercise to analyse the outcomes she presents in her stories as a balanced picture, compared with the hundreds of actual Family Court judgements now in men’s group databases.

Crawshaw begins by outlining recent changes, keeping ‘on-message’ to the end about what a fair and responsible institution the court is.

“In the past two years the area of family law has been saturated with a flood of legislative changes.

“These have ranged from altering the primary law governing the care of children to change the emphasis to one of continuing children’s relationships with both parents, to presumptions about guardianship (a child’s father will now usually be a guardian whether or not he and the mother are living together), to widening the class of people who can apply to have care of children, to admitting the media into family courtrooms and many more.

“The focus of the law relating to care of children remains the child’s (not the adult’s) best interests and welfare.

“That focal point will not please everyone, particularly those with ideological agendas including radical fathers’ rights organisations and extreme feminists, both of whom criticise the legislation and its implementation on the basis that it fails to serve their needs.”

Crawshaw’s choice of language in her column makes it pretty clear where she is coming from. The idea that there are “radical fathers’ rights organisations” throughout the country with “ideological agendas” to introduce policies which benefit men and revive patriarchy, is pure feminist spin-doctoring imported from across the Tasman. Papers which introduced this theme include Regina Graycar: ‘Equal Rights versus Fathers Rights’ and Miranda Kaye & Julia Tolmie: ‘Fathers’ Rights Groups in Australia’.
(more…)

Media Release

Parents for Children

Child Support Act Creates Unjust and Inequitable Situation for Student Loan Borrowers

Parents for Children have been supporting a father, who has a student debt, though the Family Court child support departure order process. The dad was seeking a variation to the rigid child support formula assessment (a Departure Order) to take into account his compulsory student loan repayments when calculating the amount of child support he was assessed to pay. The applicant was a self represented litigant supported by a McKenzie friend from Parents for Children.

The basis of the application for a variation from the rigid child support formula was that compulsory student loan repayments significantly reduced the capacity of this dad to support his son. In his decision, dated July 28 2005 , the Family Court Judge agreed with the fathers position that the student loan repayments were necessary and that the applicants ability to support his son, due to compulsory student loan repayments, was significantly reduced.
(more…)

Hamilton police will decide this week whether to charge two women who made separate false rape complaints at the weekend.

Detective Sergeant Nigel Keall said police spent time and resources investigating the women’s complaints.

“It’s just a waste of resources that could have been used elsewhere.”
…

Senior investigators estimate that between 60 and 80 per cent of rape complaints made by women are false.

Mr Keall said false complaints tainted the community’s perception of sexual offending and the genuine victims who needed support.

He said there was also a difference between people making complaints of stranger rapes and making allegations against a specific person, which could sometimes be malicious.

A parliamentary committee has rejected a call for a royal commission of inquiry into the case of convicted childcare worker Peter Ellis.
…

A petition calling for a top-level look at the creche case has been with Parliament’s justice and electoral select committee for two years.

Committee chairman Tim Barnett said today a royal commission was not the most effective way to address the real issues emerging from the case.

The committee made seven recommendations including that the attorney-general not oppose, or oppose only in principle, a proposed application by Ellis for leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

Is the glare of publicity too harsh for Family Courts to endure?, ask Citizens for Justice. They note that:

On or about 29 July 2005, at about 5pm, exactly 29 days – just 4 weeks and 1 day – after the new “Care of Children Act 2004” came into effect, all those beautiful Family Court Flowers [ie: published FC decisions] had mysteriously died, or at least, disappeared, leaving little trace in the blackened and scorched earth that remained. The entire list, published and presented for general, global public consumption on the Family Courts’ website, at http://www.justice.govt.nz/family/decisions/ had suddenly, without apparent warning or explanation, been deleted, the link deactivated, and replaced on almost every page on the site, with charcoal lettering as shown below

C4J goes on to explain to the uninitiated about how to retrieve old web pages from search engine caches, so all the cases (which have been unwisely left on the site) , have now been safely downloaded to at least half a dozen personal archives around the country.

It seems someone whose case was published has complained.

The Family Court says:

“The decisions have been removed due to updates taking
place. They should be up and running within the next few days.

Some items in the media about the Christchurch Men’s Issues Summit.

In Father & Child Magazine Issue 30, Winter 2005 Page 18:

Another forum touts the message that men are hard done by. It has all the ingredients of another expensive failure, writes Harald BreidingBuss.
…

Now, eight years later, we have had a ‘Men’s Forum’. This time around the event started in Auckland, and is now in the process of being exported to Christchurch as well. Instead of the Governor General (which at the moment is female) the organisers picked John Tamihere as their high profile person. Unwittingly, choosing a ‘yesterday’s man’ like Tamihere is symptomatic for the rest of the lineup, which almost entirely consists of the recycled remnants of a national fathers committee I once tried to create: the “NZ Father & Child Society”.

That was also in 1998, and I guess it is telling that in those seven intervening years this group has failed to bring any new faces to the fore. Although I created it to support a national approach for developing on the ground services for fathers, the resulting group never wanted to go there. Like ‘Fathering the Future’ they saw the way forward in pestering the media with opinions rather than being there for dads when they are needed. Without any work going into building up the base, no new people could emerge, and, like ‘Fathering the Future’ the group was quickly heading for either oblivion or insignificance.

Nevertheless, two of the speakers in the upcoming Christchurch Forum chose to use ‘NZ Father & Child Society’ in identifying their credentials, although they have no connection with the work linked to the name Father & Child, such as this magazine, our teen dads project or our work in the area of childbirth.

Ironically, all of the speakers at the forum are worth listening to. But while once more the political world, and political correctness, will be slammed for neglecting men, and changes will be called for, no group or organisation emerges that could actually institute such change.

And so we will have another few days, perhaps a couple of weeks, where organisers and/or speakers can bask in the glory of being quoted in the media before patting each other on the back for a job well done and going back to business as usual.

Frankly, who needs it?

After the summit:

Christchurch think tank issues call to address issue of gender balance before it swings in the opposite direction

Major social problems are being forecast, as women increasingly break through the career glass ceiling and take on top jobs.

A Men’s Issues summit in Christchurch has heard nearly 60 percent of tertiary students are now women.

Massey University’s Centre for Public Policy Evaluation director Stuart Birks says in two decades women in senior management positions could outnumber men.

Under the heading: Experts reject theory of male early-life crisis , Keri Welham notes:

New Zealand experts have dismissed a British study that claims men are more likely to suffer an early-life crisis than the traditional mid-life variety.

Then a passing mention of the Men’s Issues Summit:

The pressures facing men were canvassed at a summit in Christchurch on Friday. Featuring outspoken Labour MP John Tamihere, the summit looked at issues such as violence and boys lagging behind girls in education.

Rex McCann, director of an Auckland-based support group, Essentially Men, told The Press the supposed new early-life crisis phenomenon would not replace the “mid-life transition”, a recognised identity crisis that hits men in their 40s.

“You can’t have an identity crisis until you’ve got your identity formed,” he said.

Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
Bradford’s Repeal of s. 59 Criminalises all Parents

Ms Bradford’s private members bill – the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — that repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee last week following its first reading. Ms Bradford is no doubt well intentioned in wanting to address the serious problem she calls “the culture of violence” against children in our country. However, the Society believes the repeal of s. 59 will do nothing to address the root causes or shocking symptoms of this violence. Instead it will have a seriously negative impact on many families whose parents seek to and effectively apply good parenting techniques in the discipline of their children.

Ms Bradford and her supporters such as Ms Beth Wood, spokeswoman for UNICEF and anti-smacking group Epoch (End Physical Punishment of Children), Dr Cindy Kiro, Children’s Commissioner and Kaye Crowther, Plunket president, are determined to remove all legal protections to good parents who choose to smack their kids for serious wrongdoing as a means of discipline. The Explanatory note to the bill states that “the repeal of section 59 ought not revive any old common law justification, excuse or defence [for the use of “reasonable force” including smacking] that the provision may have codified.”
…

The vast majority of New Zealand parents deeply love their children, do all they can to correctly discipline their children so they learn that there are consequences to wrongdoing and abhor all forms of child abuse and violence against children. It is these outstanding loving parents who would be criminalised if Ms Bradford’s bill became law. She and her misguided supporters deliberately conflate the controlled and measured use of smacking with “abuse” and “violence”. By the fallacious substitution of some pejorative noun such as “hitting”, “violence”, “assault” or “abuse” for “smacking”, they have attempted to subvert the use of language. Their linguistically strained rhetoric is dishonest.
…
(more…)

“Thank you for the opportunity to open the training induction workshop, which launches the Family Safety Team pilot initiative.

“The strength of this project is its integrated and collaborative approach. Family Safety Teams involve Justice, Police, CYF and, in the community sector, the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, Child Abuse Prevention Services, and the National Network of Stopping Violence Services.

“All these agencies have a common purpose but in the past have not sufficiently worked together and shared information to maximize their effectiveness. Family Safety Teams are about achieving the best possible coordination, communication and collaboration.”

JohnP: Some fathers experience this ‘common purpose’ as collusion, conspiracy and complicity, instead of the more cuddly words used in Goff’s speech.

“Women and children are mainly the victims of violence within families. Violence within families, however, is not limited to partner violence or child abuse. Elder abuse, violence towards parents by their children, and violence between siblings exists. Family Safety Teams will take a holistic approach addressing all of these issues. ”

JohnP: Holistic, that is except the category of violence that we never mention because we are in denial of its existence.

“The Ministry of Justice has been monitoring the working of the Domestic Violence Act since it came into force in 1995. It has concluded that the underlying policy of the Act is sound, it is well supported by stakeholders and only minor amendments are necessary. ”

JohnP: Fathers are obviously not considered ‘stakeholders’.

“In the pilot phase, $14.9 million has been invested in Family Safety Teams to help achieve these outcomes. ”
…

JohnP: Must be worth billions when they roll out the final phase.

“It aims to ensure families make greater use of existing services and assistance, such as protection orders, counselling, health, education, housing and income support services.”
…

“Early intervention is the key to effective prevention …

“Early intervention is necessary and effective at turning around behaviours that are likely to lead… before victims are created…

“Early intervention needs to be targeted, relatively intensive and ongoing. It requires a very high level of coordination of effort between government and community agencies. ”

JohnP: I guess ‘Early Intervention’ means ignoring the hard, scary cases which are embarassing to CYF when they go horribly wrong, and instead going after nice, law-abiding middle-class type of families who break some minor regulation in a poorly-trained social worker’s imagination.

Perhaps they’ll be coming for you…

Medical opinion is swinging towards prostate cancer screening for men, a leading Christchurch urologist says.

The debate was reignited at the national GPs conference in Christchurch yesterday, despite current Ministry of Health advice against a national screening programme.

In a show of hands, most GPs at the conference debate indicated they would offer prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood-testing to men over 50 during a general health check-up.

Urologist Peter Davidson said prostate cancer was the third-biggest cancer killer in men after lung and colon cancer. About 550 men a year die of it, more than the 450 killed on the roads.

Clinicians were persuaded by recent research that showed screening improved the length of time sufferers lived after diagnosis.

However, epidemiologist Dr Ann Richardson said there was no strong evidence that screening made any difference to how long a man would live.

She said doctors should wait for the results of major studies under way in Europe and the United States. Those studies were randomised controlled trials, considered the gold standard in medical research.

One of the main dangers of screening was over-treatment, Richardson said.
…

Prostate Cancer Foundation president Barry Young said that although PSA testing was not diagnostic, it was no less accurate than mammography and there was not a better screening option.

“The Ministry of Health says men without symptoms should not ask to be tested,” he said.

“But the horrible thing is if you go along with symptoms and find it’s caused by prostate cancer, it’s generally too late. Once it’s out of the prostate, it’s incurable.”
…

Christchurch Men and Fathers Network co-chairman Don Rowlands said prostate cancer was a huge issue, but men’s health was not prioritised.

“Health is a competition for funds,” he said.

The father of a girl videoed being sexually abused by her CYF-appointed caregiver says he pleaded with social workers not to place his daughters and son with the man because they would be in danger.

Police are investigating the man after they discovered thousands of child pornography images on his computer and videos in which he allegedly violated one of the girls.

Child, Youth and Family is also investigating the placement of the girls, aged 10 and 7, and a four-year-old boy, who were sent to the man in October.
…

Port Waikato MP Paul Hutchison, who was approached by the “desperately worried” parents in November, said he also wrote to CYF, but was ignored. “I’ve just found this one of the most appalling cases I’ve ever dealt with,” he said yesterday.

The alleged abuse was discovered in March when police investigated a sexual assault complaint made by a 19-year-old woman boarding at his home in a town near Auckland.

The allegations are detailed in a police letter to CYF, obtained by National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins.
…

Ms Collins said the case was the latest in a long line of failures by CYF, and should be independently investigated. “This is just another complete cock up by CYF in a situation where children have been…put into a situation of extreme danger. And…CYF were warned about it.”

Don’t blame social workers until review completed – union

The Public Service Association (PSA) said it is too easy to blame social workers when families are in crisis.

National secretary Brenda Pilott said all PSA members were shocked by the allegations.

It was inappropriate for the union to comment on the case because it was being investigated by CYF and police, she said.

“High profile abuse cases often lead to a feeding frenzy of media and political attention.

“However politicians, the media and others currently commenting on it need to be open to the possibility that inadequate systems and processes are just as likely to be at fault as poor social work practice.”

Social workers dealt with New Zealand’s most dysfunctional families and damaged children and the review must go beyond simply looking for someone to blame, Ms Pilott said.

“The nation’s social workers do their best every day to turn around young lives destroyed by abuse and neglect.

By Barbara Faithfull
21st July 2005

Women’s Refuge appeal week is here again, and once again generously helped along by Body Shop, with lavish displays of Refuge literature etc. and other persuasive materials.

Last year they also began a public petition for Refuge, calling on the government to increase its spending, and the N.Z. Herald of 5th July 2005 reports that with over 200,000 signatures, the petition had now been presented to Women’s Affairs Minister Ruth Dyson. Also that Dyson “acknowledged Women’s Refuge’s significant contribution to the community by protecting victims and working to prevent family violence”. Well, she would say that, wouldn’t she?

Last September I wrote a rebuttal to that, entitled Crisis in N.Z. Family Violence Services. Public Enquiry overdue : Let’s start with Women’s Refuge. Among others, I sent a copy of it to National’s Judith Collins, but apart from a polite acknowledgement I’ve had no further response from her on it. An abridged version of it was subsequently published as guest editorial in the March 2005 edition of the Christian publication DayStar.

Now, as well as all the concerns I outlined there about Refuge and anti-violence activism in general, I find even more to be concerned about : their involvement in a movement which seeks to link violence to humans with violence/cruelty to animals! On the web under AWINZ — Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand — it is there for all to see.

I was first alerted to this astonishing new trend in anti-violence activism by an interview which Paul Henry conducted earlier this month with Plunket policy analyst Cathy Kern on 11th July on Radio Live. (Also Plunket’s fundraising week, incidentally) It followed a N.Z.Herald report on July 9th headed “Cruelty to animals by children could indicate sexual abuse”.
(more…)

We know that familial separations raise many emotions worries and tensions, and in many cases there is a breaking point. For a west Auckland man arriving home from work in those early days of separation a letter in the mail box was the straw that would break the camels back. More so the content than the letter itself for it signified to him the replacement of his duty to his family with an obligation to the state.

What may have happened within the mind of this man between the time he received his indictment to the time he undertook to end his life may be an experience that he fears to recall and share with others, as is the case with many wounded soldiers who take their untold stories to the grave.

Around eleven pm that night a few short hours later he walked from the remnants of his family home, down to the local railway line, his choice of self imposed execution. Unable to give consideration to the desperate thoughts of an engine driver locked into the unavoidable his only want was for the train to do its job. What came down the line that night was not the screech of breaks and a death wish, but the shuffle of feet and a youthful expression.
“Hey mister, you should come back in the morning, cause the next trains not till 6 o‘clock.”

It is an unusual but true story and perhaps the narrow gateway through which some return by default. Such stories however will remain untold without men of courage and writers of integrity and determination.

Bevan Berg (Union of Fathers)

Excerpts from RadioNZ Morning Report Wed 6th July 7.08 am

The families of four men convicted of rape wept at the High Court in Wellington yesterday as the verdicts were read out.
…

The rapes took place 16 years ago, and apart from the victim’s testimony there was no supporting or forensic evidence that the rapes took place.
…

Carolyn Day of the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation says this case may encourage women who have chosen not to bring forward rape complaints to re-consider. “I think women that may have buried that experience, or partly forgotten about it can be re-connected with that, and have a desire to come forward and do something about it.”

So is it possible to have a fair trial when events which are contended took place so long ago? To discuss this we are joined by Felicity Goodyear-Smith, an expert on sexual assault cases from Auckland University, and also from Auckland University Scott Optican, a senior lecturer in Criminal Law.

Felicity Goodyear-Smith firstly: do you think we can rely on the safety of such convictions?

“I think that there are dangers in taking very historical cases, because of the extreme difficulty presented in defending allegations that relate to the distant past. There are other countries that have what is called a Statute of Limitations, where you have a limited period of time to press charges; for instance most States of the United States have a Statute of Limitations generally from one to five years, and after that you can’t press charges.”
(more…)

New rules aimed at making it easier to settle paternity disputes are under
fire even before they’ve come into force. Critics say couples will not always be able to prove who fathered a child because one partner will still be able to say “no” to DNA tests.
…

“You’re convicted without a trial at the moment” says paternity campaigner Gordon Dowler. He speaks from experience: it took him 20 years to prove he wasn’t the father of a child because the mother refused to allow tests.
…

Jim Bagnall of the Union of Fathers says: “Well I suppose it is an improvement, but the mother is still the gate-keeper and she can refuse.”

Watch Streaming Video of this item here

A bill removing the legal defence of “reasonable force” for parents punishing their children should be examined by a parliamentary committee rather than dismissed out of hand, Prime Minister Helen Clark says.

Greens MP Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill that would repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act is expected to face its first reading in Parliament this month.

A poll by an Auckland paper published at the weekend showed more than 70 per cent of voters want parents to keep the right to use “reasonable force” to punish their children.

The survey showed 71.2 per cent of voters believed section 59 of the Crimes Act – which gave parents the legal defence of reasonable force – was needed. The polled revealed 21 per cent disagreed.

Chief Family Court Judge Peter Boshier says judges will interpret the new Care of Children Act to give both parents “optimum good quality time” with their children when the parents separate.

The new law also gives children the right to their own lawyers in separation tussles, gives grandparents and others in the wider family the right to seek parenting orders in the children’s interests, and opens Family Courts to the media.

Judge Boshier said a wording change from “custody” to “day-to-day care” of children meant both parents were now expected to exercise more parental responsibility.

“We have had too many parenting arrangements where one parent has not been parenting as much as they should,” he said.

“I think there will be a change in our attitude to the extent of the time that children will spend with each parent.

“It hasn’t been unusual for one parent to have custody the greater bulk of the time and the other simply to have ‘access’.

“Our thinking now is that may have been historically acceptable, but is no longer necessarily tenable.
…

Judge Boshier said the changes would reinforce the goal of reaching agreement without the need to go to court.

The Care of Children Act also gives judges a new power to jail parents who breach Family Court orders for up to three months, and increases the maximum fines to $2500.

Auckland District Law Society family law spokesman Stuart Cummings said the law change was “a watershed and an opportunity to do things differently”.

Child Support Corruption.

If child support is going to be the issue that the major political parties refuse to face purely for the financial implications of reviewing it, then it may well be the dog that bites them on the arse.

The average man suffers a harsh and destructive punishment, when he objects to child support on principle, and has his earning ability estimated so he must pay the maximum child support.

Compare this to the high paid academic objecting on the same principles, who normally would be required to pay the maximum amount of child support but is being allowed to pay half that amount.

Surely this betrays the philosophical face of the current administration, or perhaps those would be occupants of the incontestable moral high ground are claiming states prerogative.

If one hand is a false obligation surely the other is a false duty. The more pragmatic might ask – “Will the issue be ignored before the election and the corruption continue afterwards.” Regardless, such complicity betrays both a decent society and our children.

Our continuing battle to have child support reviewed will not be assisted if we either, remain in isolation and accept this sort of harassment and intimidation or if we put ourselves in voluntary isolation after accepting a state bribe.

Such situations illustrate to me a disturbing lack of unity amongst men in New Zealand and a furthering of the profound weakness developing in our society.

Dr Muriel Newman

Speech to the Christchurch Mens Political Forum, Christchurch Community Law Centre, 7pm.

Today we are being asked what our parties would do for New Zealand men. For a long time I have been extremely concerned about government policies, which disadvantage men and marginalise fathers. Since entering Parliament, ACT has consistently campaigned to right the balance in our laws.

As a priority, ACT would reform family law to introduce shared parenting. This means that in the event of a family breakdown children would have the support of their mother and father, as well as both sets of grandparents and wider family. It is disgraceful that in spite of a Private Members Bill to introduce shared parenting having twice been debated in Parliament, the Labour party, the Progressives, the Greens and New Zealand First failed to consider the issue important enough to send it to a Select Committee.

As a consequence of the present system, which gives the custody of children almost exclusively to mothers – and tolerates the frequent use of false allegations against the fathers of the children — many fathers lose contact with their children. That not only causes intense heartbreak and trauma for children, fathers and grandparents, but it leads to far higher levels of non-compliance with child support orders than would be the case if dads were able to take part in parenting.
(more…)

The Government will close a loophole that enables DPB recipients to block the collection of child support payments.

Social Development and Employment Minister Steve Maharey revealed the planned change yesterday, after being questioned about assertions by National that more than 200 fathers on the Domestic Purposes Benefit refused to “name” the mother of their child – preventing the state collecting child support from them.

In fact Work and Income knows the identity of all the mothers, because it requires a birth certificate with the mother’s name to be presented before the father can claim the benefit.

But Mr Maharey said there was differing advice on whether the department could demand a liable parent contribution from either non-custodial fathers and mothers without the signed agreement of the custodial parent on a benefit.

Some beneficiaries are penalised by $22 a week a child for failing to sign the liable parent form – but if the liable parent is working the state would recover significantly more money per child.

There are 223 men – down from 250 earlier this year – who have not signed the consent forms and about 15,000 women who have not signed.
…

National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins, who raised the issue of fathers not naming the mothers at her party’s weekend conference, claimed victory for the law change.

The Government had taken the matter more seriously since leader Don Brash had announced National would introduce stiffer penalties for non-liable parents in his Orewa welfare speech, she said.

This week Newman Online looks at the Labour Government’s feminist agenda and how it is undermining the New Zealand family.

It is difficult to understand how a government that deliberately undermines the family – disadvantaging children and marginalising fathers – can retain popular support? That is unless the unsuspecting public is not really aware of their anti-family agenda.

That extreme agenda is deeply embedded within Labour’s radical feminist and lesbian factions and has been a significant force driving not only the Party, but also parts of the public service, for more than thirty years. There is no doubt that while many New Zealanders have suspected that this is the case, it was former Minister John Tamihere who confirmed it in the recent “Investigate Magazine” interview.

The feminist vision was to end the oppression of women by liberating them from the shackles of a husband and family. They wanted to see power firmly in the hands of women, with women ultimately taking over the country’s top jobs. With four of the major players in the feminist movement having now become Prime Minister, Parliament’s Speaker, Chief Justice and Governor General, their agenda is extremely well progressed.

But while seeing women winning top jobs by competing equally with men is one thing, three out of four of those top positions are appointments made by the Prime Minister: by appointing her mates, Helen Clark has shown that she puts cronyism ahead of merit and can’t be trusted.

The march of modern-day feminism was given a significant boost in 1984 when the Labour Government established the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Over the years the Ministry has focussed exclusively on women’s rights and if those rights have been achieved at the expense of family wellbeing and the rights of men, then that is the price we have to pay for giving the radical activists within Labour who were driving the driving force, a free reign.
(more…)

By Farah Farouque The Age (Melbourne)

What has made the dominant sex feel like victims?

Paul Black is not the sort of bloke to take to the streets in protest. But this week he did something atypical: fuelled by intense feelings of frustration, he got in his car and made the long trip from Mulgrave to Canberra to attend a two-day conference of the Lone Fathers Association.

“I don’t see myself as a radical, I’m not the sort who wants to go ripping out letterboxes or shouting slogans,” says this new recruit to the men’s movement. “But the inequalities that were there for women 20, 30 years ago are now there for men. The pendulum has swung from too many opportunities for men to too many opportunities for women.”

Black has entered the organised men’s movement along a well-worn path: relationship breakdown. There are up to 200 men’s groups in Australia, according to estimates – and many could be called estranged fathers’ groups. They bear names from Dads in Distress to the cuddly sounding Fatherhood Foundation, and typically attract men in midlife. While the groups claim a growing membership, the extent of their support is unknown. The Lone Fathers Association says it helps 30,000 men a year, but their paid-up membership is 9000 nationally. However, La Trobe University researcher Michael Flood says the number actively agitating in the men’s movement would be no more than 2000.

What makes them remarkable is that they subvert the traditional paradigm of social activism in that they represent the interests of the dominant group in society. Or do they? The argument these men’s groups mount, with growing political muscle, is that they are getting an unfair deal, not only when it comes to family law issues but in other areas such as men’s health. There is a growing lobby for free prostate screening, boys’ education – crystallised in a federal push for more male primary teachers – and even domestic violence.
…

Barry Williams, the president and founder of the Lone Fathers Association, prosecutes some of the familiar themes of the men’s rights movement in a mild tone sometimes at odds with the strength of his rhetoric. “Both men and women are, in fact, equally likely to be perpetrators of violence in relationships, although women are somewhat more likely to be seriously injured,” he declares.

He warns his membership to be on guard against “further development of an ideologically based domestic-violence industry funded by the taxpayer”. “There is a very serious issue of discrimination here,” he says.

Martin Van Beynan Christchurch Press

You would have been shocked, as I was, by a story from Britain last week about the latest terrible turn in child abuse.

The story, which would have found its way into most major world newspapers, was about a study done for the London police by a social worker and lawyer into the beliefs of immigrant African and Asian communities in ritualistic abuse.
…

I’m sensitive to this sort of stuff because I wrote one of these sorts of articles in 1991, during a sad period in Christchurch’s history when a mist of unreasoning belief in sadistic and organised child kidnapping and abuse seemed to descend on the city.

Covering the Family Violence Conference in September of that year, I interviewed specialists in the field of ritual abuse in New Zealand. Two Wellington counsellors, Jocelyn Frances and Ann-Marie Stapp, talked of having interviewed three people who had survived horrific satanic rituals undergone from an early age. They claimed about 20 more were seeking their help and said the floodgates were about to open on the practice.
(more…)

Announcing the Manhood 2005 Conference (open to women).

The Men’s Health and Wellbeing Association (Queensland) Inc. is delighted to announce the Manhood 2005 Conference, to be held on the 20th — 23rd October 2005 at the Novotel Twin Waters Resort, on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland.

This inaugural conference will bring together organisations and individuals who are involved in grassroots men’s work with government departments, agencies and private sector men’s and boy’s health providers.

The Manhood 2005 conference will provide an opportunity to see and hear keynote speakers and presenters showcasing current programs, initiatives, research and trends associated with the health and wellbeing of men and boys. The title ‘Redefining the Roles’ has been chosen so that the relevance and importance of what contemporary masculinity means can be reviewed, openly debated, highlighted and celebrated.

A number of notable speakers have already been secured including Steve Biddulph, Richard Fletcher, Jed Diamond, Alan Blackburn and Dr Arne Rubinstein.

Australian and New Zealand Men’s Gathering

The Conference will be followed by the biennial ANZ Men’s Gathering, which will be held at a camp on the sunshine coast. This will be followed by the:

Queensland Manhood Festival

This is the local Queensland men’s gathering for the men of that area, however they are looking forward to Kiwi men joining them.

Manhood 2005 incorporates 3 events in 11 days!
Conference OCT 20 – 23
ANZMG OCT 25 – 28
Festival OCT 28 – 30

Costing for NZ Men and attending all 3 events: AU$ 990 GST included.

Attend 2 events – Manhood Conference and ANZMG: AU$ 800 GST included.

or ANZMG + Manhood Festival: AU$ 420 GST included.

If you are attending only 1 event we can only really offer a discount on ANZMG and Festival

AU$ 250 for either, GST included

ANZMG and Manhood Festival costs included accommodation and food.

Conference registration documents can be found on line, link below. Conference accommodation at Novotel Twin Waters has been negotiated at good rates and up to four adults can share in one room to save on costs.

We are looking forward to sharing this time and space with a strong group of men from across the Tasman.

To view more information on Manhood 2005, including registration, venue, accommodation, and flyers, please visit; www.menshealthandwellbeing.org.au .

We welcome email enquiries to— [email protected] .

Across New Zealand society, marriage has become unfashionable. Sole parents have increased from 10 per cent of families with dependent children in 1976 to 29 per cent today – higher than in any other developed country except the United States. By the age of 20, 35 per cent of Pakeha children, 49 per cent of Pacific children and 57 per cent of Maori children have lived in homes without one parent, usually the father.

Forty-one per cent of Pakeha babies, 55 per cent of Pacific babies and 76 per cent of Maori babies were born last year to unmarried parents.

The Labour Government sees nothing to worry about. In a Herald interview five years ago, Social Development Minister Steve Maharey said that as long as sole parents were “able to provide love, discipline and sound nurturing, things are going to be okay”.

But National leader Don Brash told the Orewa Rotary Club that the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) had contributed to the growth in fatherlessness and births outside marriage: “It is idle to pretend this is anything but a disastrous trend.”

Sole parents are accustomed to being political footballs, but Brash’s proposals would be tougher than any previous regime since the DPB was created in 1973. They raise questions. Why does New Zealand have such a high rate of sole parenthood? Does it matter?
(more…)

Women of “marriageable age” are flocking to New Zealand at rates of up to one-third higher than men.

A new study has found that New Zealand has a higher ratio of women to men in the peak childbearing ages of 30 to 34 than any other industrialised country, with 9 per cent more women than men.
…

Researcher Paul Callister says the surplus of women in their 30s is higher today than it was after thousands of men died in the Great War.

“In New Zealand in 1921 and 1926 we were busily building war memorials in small towns to ‘missing men’,” he said.

“The overall picture of sex ratios in 2004 is even more dramatic than the ongoing effects of loss of men in World War I.”
…

“It could be to do with how the economy is changing,” Dr Callister said. “We have always had historical immigration that has been gendered. When we had a lot of tree cutting, we had more men than women.

“Now that we want more nurse-aides, childcare workers, cleaners and, dare I say it, prostitutes, we are going to bring in a different sort of labour and it’s going to be predominantly female.”