« More Regulation of Women's Behavior | Main | Sex, Drugs, Rock 'n Roll »

August 17, 2004

New Zealand Rejects "Shared Parenting"

Although it's a good thing that New Zealand has rejected fathers' rights demands for presumptive joint custody/"shared parenting," there is little to cheer. The next step will be government introduction of divorce-related cottage industries such as mandatory mediation and mandatory parenting classes. These new mandates will cause the cost of divorce to skyrocket and they will intrude on the lives of mothers and children. Since mothers overall have fewer monetary resources at their disposal than fathers these mandates will unfairly penalize them.

The pattern in New Zealand is the same as the pattern around the world, especially in the U. K., Australia, and the U. S. Fathers' rights activist lobby heavily for reforms. They don't get what they want - namely, presumptive joint custody. They don't get the ability to see mom spend time in jail when they don't get visitation when they want it. They become quite livid about not getting their way. Instead, divorce-related cottage industries crop up, which make the cost of divorce and custody-cases rise dramatically. While fathers' rights activists won't get what they wanted, they will become very unhappy about it, and they will be livid that the costs of their cases have tripled compared to what the cost would have been before reforms, these reforms will give noncustodial dads more ability to meddle and interfere with the way mom chooses to live her life and the decisions she wishes to make about herself and how to properly raise the children.

Even though they will get a little bit more dick-around room to interfere than they had previously, the real winners with the reforms will be the professionals who will make money from them. That means custody evaluators, parenting coordinators, mediators, attorneys, guardians ad litem (GALs), and others who make their money from the burgeoning field of conflict resolution, joint custody promotion, and "friendly" divorce. All of those people stand to make a lot of money.

These reforms will step on moms toes as the primary caregiver and they will usurp her established parental authority. Please see my previous post about the mom jailed for smoking in front of her children and my previous posts about moms being prevented from relocating with the children.

Posted on August 17, 2004 at 11:48 AM | Permalink


With manhating hairy legs comments like the diatribe spewed up here, it is little wonder that so many fathers in New Zealand lose contact with their children. It follows on the high statistics associated with father absence that New Zealand unenviably has.

It is time that fathers stood up and defied this type of crap for the sake of our children.

Posted by: Mark Stead at Nov 2, 2004 4:23:47 PM

Would be better if you stuck to writing on something you have a knowledge of rather than
showing how ignorant you are.

Mark Stead is right, this blog is crap, written by someone who needs to do some basic research before they run off at the mouth (or keyboard).

When you know something about New Zealand and the NZ Men's Movement write about it, untill then keep your illinformed and misleading prejudice against Kiwi Dads and Kids to yourself.

Posted by: Jim Nicolle at Nov 2, 2004 9:16:11 PM

This is Trish Wilson's blog so if you don't like her utilizing her rights of free speech or her comments on her own blog then don't read them...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2004 9:41:41 PM

MYMOM i'm just utilising my right to free speech to make the point that Trish Wilson has failed to do any basic research before writing this piece of crap.

Posted by: Jim Nicolle at Nov 2, 2004 10:03:06 PM

Trish Wilson has been involved in this issue and related ones for years as I've been reading articles from her on child custody, child support, fathers rights, women's reproductive issues for at least 5 years now...so it's YOU who doesn't know what you are talking about...

Do not try to discredit someone just because you disagree with them ON THEIR OWN BLOG...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 2, 2004 10:31:17 PM

Trish's comments are blatantly one-sided as are most feminists these days. Non-custodial parents usually have no avenue to prosecute (yes, it is usually fathers who are non-custodial parents) when the mother holds back access that has been legally granted by the courts, and should well be a father's rights regardless of how much the woman hates the man. That is no reason to prevent a child from having meaningful contact with their father. I would have to agree with Jim, it appears that there is absolutely no research conducted by Trish to back her comments up whatsoever. Father's should have equal rights and access to their child. Parents who interfere with the other's ability to continue to have a loving relationship with their children should be held accountable, be it through granting child custody to the non-custodial parent, or through fines and jail time.

Posted by: Kris at Nov 3, 2004 12:04:02 AM

Fascinating! Two questions:

1. What basis do the women who believe this "stuff" (I'll be polite!) have to assume that THEY, and they ALONE, should have the sole right to bring up children which are, in irrefutable scientific fact, genetically only 50% theirs, and 50% the father's?

2. By what illogical, erroneous fallacy do they convince themselves that they are the better parent to bring up those children - since they are genetically only 50% their mother's, and, since mothers know ZIP, NOUGHT, ZERO, nothing about manhood, why do they assume that they can even satisfactorily bring up boys at all? Point of Fact - Many children in history were raised by their fathers because the mothers often died in childbirth.

But only time will tell how INFERIOR mothers really are at raising children alone. Time will show that MEN may be poorer cooks and homemakers, but they raise far smarter, better adjusted young human beings than women who screw up their efforts with arrogance, bitterness and limited intellects.

Believe in God or not, **HE** was very smart when he apportioned brains and wombs and DNA. He gave women two X chromosomes so they cannot procreate the species without men (unto whom He entrusted the Y chromosome), and he gave them a collection of simple, multi-tasking brains so they can prepare veges, cook, talk, mind children, tend the fire, watch out for sabre-tooth tigers (and now, watch TV and talk on the phone) - all at the same time, but never really grasp large and complex tasks - the bigger picture - Example: how many great composers were/are women? They just don't have the brain for it. Now ain't that interesting? When women pride themselves on being the fairer gender, but it takes men to create great music. (Among many things... Example - how many women garbage collectors are there?)

Just as men who are led by the small head are fools (or dicks?), women who are led by their wombs are just as empty-headed.

When the child leaves the womb s/he is finished with it. The fact that s/he gestated there is of no more importance than the fact that half his DNA was produced in his father's scrotum. Similarly, when s/he leaves the breast (often, thanks to selfish mother's, far before s/he is ready), the fact that s/he fed there is no more important than the fact that most of his/her body weight was attained from food his/her FATHER paid for. (Whether through compulsory Child Support payments or otherwise.)

Face it you women - MEN and WOMEN are DIFFERENT but EQUAL.

So get over the fact that you having a womb and tits makes you vital to the species but in other ways a lesser being. Men and Women are both greater and lesser. IN TOTAL, WE ARE EQUAL.

Accept it.


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 3, 2004 12:54:14 AM

To err is human of course!

I just noticed that I suggested that men may be poorer cooks than women.

But I realise that the great chefs of the world are men, so go figure.

What are women truly great at?

composing or conducting music, taking out the garbage, collecting the garbage, operating large machinery (how many ship captains are women?), designing computers, repairing cars, maintaining cars!, building skyscrapers, smelting steel, changing car tyres, directing movies...

Seems to me that women are expert at less complex, especially repetitive or multiple contemporaneous tasks, such as bank tellering, checkout operating, travel agency, etc. We agree, they do truly excel at multi-tasking, such as secretarial, telephonists, Girl Fridays, organisers, etc. But where's the greatness?

So, all you great women out there: Please, tell me, tell me do. What great things do women frequently do that men usually do not?

(And don't say bring up children, because the jury is definitely out on that one. We also know that women are actually far MORE violent than men, and often use knives, not to mention psychological abuse and passive-aggression, and also that the most violent domestic relationships of all are LESBIAN ones - and YES, I've seen it for myself.)

So let's hear intelligent counter-argument, all you clever women.


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 3, 2004 1:17:19 AM

A substantial amount of social studies data indicates that sole custody arrangements are far more harmful to children, even in conflicted cases, than joint custody. This must be a factor in determination of the “best interests of the children” otherwise the law fails for a result contrary to its stated purpose in suggesting that it promotes the “best interests of the child.”

The great majority of studies showing that father love is as important as mother love deal with one or a combination of the following five issues among children, adolescents, and young adults: (1) personality and psychological adjustment problems including issues of self-concept/self-esteem, emotional stability, and aggression (Amato, 1998; Becker, 1960; Becker et al., 1959; Buri, 1989; Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988; Buri, Murphy, Richtsmeier, & Komar, 1992; Dekovic & Meeus, 1997; Emmelkamp & Karsdorp, 1987; Fine, Voydanoff, & Donnelly, 1993; Jacobs, Spilken, & Norman, 1972; McPherson, 1974; Monkman, 1958; Nash, 1965; Peppin, 1962; Peterson et al., 1959; Peterson, Becker, Shoemaker, Luria, & Hellmer, 1961; Sears, 1970; Yamasaki, 1990); (2) conduct problems, especially in school (Becker, 1960; DeKlyen, Biernbaum, Speltz, & Greenberg, 1998; DeKlyen, Speltz, & Greenberg, 1998; McPherson, 1974; Paley, Conger, & Harold, 2000; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Renk, Phares, & Epps, 1999; Russell & Russell, 1996; Siantz & Smith, 1994); (3) cognitive and academic performance issues (Amato, 1998; Carroll, 1973; Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1984; Heilbrun, Orr, & Harrell, 1966; Peppin, 1962); (4) mental illness (Arrindell, Emmelkamp, Monsma, & Brilman, 1983; Crook, Raskin, & Eliot, 1981; Greenberger & Chen, 1996; R. W. Lidz & Lidz, 1949; T. Lidz et al., 1956; Richter, Richter, & Eisemann, 1990); and (5) substance abuse (Barnes, 1984; Prendergast & Schaefer, 1974).

Posted by: Mary Quite Contrary at Nov 3, 2004 1:40:18 AM

I've been reading Trish's drivel on this issue for quite some. She literally and deliberately misconstrues facts and statistics on the issues of father's equal rights for the soul purpose of rubbing it in father's faces. That is the only purpose she serves. Don't believe me? Read back on some of her articles rife with snark and sarcasm. That's why she wrote her latest article.
As for you NYMOM, someone should get you a box of kleenex as a christmas present, so you can wipe the brown ring Trish leaves on your nose everytime time she stops suddenly, but you don't.

Posted by: George Neary at Nov 3, 2004 9:24:45 AM

Well ttwtanbtt, you're right the only real differencce between men and women is that WE are the ones who actually bring the children into this world as man's contribution in this area is nothing, 0, probably negative 0 really...actually it's equivalent to a fart or a sneeze, totally involuntary action which happens everytime they have more then 2 minutes alone with themselves or a woman...and with technology progressing so rapidly soon your real contribution will be even LESS then that...so you'll pretty much be of no use whatsoever, as most men are pretty close to being that right now.

The Spartans thought women's suffering in bearing children was equivalent to what men when through on the front lines in war, so they asked nothing else of mothers in this area; but we all KNOW how much more suffering the average man goes through today compared to what the ancient Greeks went through in times of war, so your opinion of men's worth today is probably understandable...NOT...

Oh btw, you forgot in your list of things MEN do that women don't these few items:

Started every War we've ever had.

Commit 90% of all crimes in the WORLD, if we factor out prostitution, men commit 99.9% of all crime in the world.

Commit 99.9% of ALL deviant acts such as rapes, viewing of child pornography, etc.,

These figures hold true WORLDWIDE by the way, not just in western societies...

So don't forget to include these little tidbits into your statistics in the future...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2004 12:01:51 PM

BTW, lesbian relationships are the LEAST violent of ALL relationships and LAST longer then gay males ones...not to mention that the rate of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is far LESS in lesbians then in any other group...

Also if you think women are SO much more violent why don't you spend a day in a totally male oriented environment like a male prison...The US had over a million men locked up here versus 100,000 women and they pretty much spend every single day if not trying to rape and kill each other, then trying to kill their guards...

AND these numbers pretty much hold true in every society in the world...men commit more deviant, violent acts on a scale of like 10 to 1 compared to women...Actually if you factor out prostitution, the percentages for male versus female crime is even higher.

Of course, women HAVE been experiencing a rise in violence in their prisons lately...It appears that an influx of MALE GUARDS has driven the rape statistics up in women's prisons as even the 'best of you' cannot manage to control himself in any given situation...

So a good case can be made that NO MEN should be allowed amongst children as you and your mates don't seem to know how to act..even the best of you in a bad situation does not appear to be able to control their deviant behaviors...

Posted by: NY MOM at Nov 3, 2004 12:17:47 PM

Hello folks,

It is a very sad thing that New Zealand has rejected Shared Parenting.

But of course not everyone will agree, as not everyone has the commonsense to see that the children should come first.

Labour continues to ensure the decline of the nuclear family, which of course will lead to the continued steady decay of New Zealand society. With Parental Alienation rife already, the perpetrators mostly being vindictive and callous solo mothers, we can expect our children to suffer not only psychologically as adults, but also suffer due to the steady incline of civil unrest as people get more peeved with the corrupt system Labour is imposing on us all.

The only winners will be the law enforcement agencies and the lawyers. So, one good thing these abusive solo mothers can do for their kids is to encourage them to become lawyers. Better still, a lawyer who never marries and never has children.

Why does Trish Wilson hate people? Was she abused by her mother too?

Posted by: Paul Robertson at Nov 3, 2004 3:51:12 PM

NYMOM (mailto:mat51@columbia.edu) wrote:
> Started every War we've ever had.
> Commit 90% of all crimes in the WORLD, if we factor out prostitution, men commit 99.9% of all crime in
> the world.

The cause of most wars is religion. Of course, religion is the biggest farce in the history of humankind.

I am equal with my ex wife on that one.

I have a conviction for Misuse of a Telephone. The reason for this is because I phoned my now Alienated daughter to invite her to her younger female cousin's birthday party. The victim is my daughter and my niece, but neither are a victim due to my phone call.

My wife has a conviction for fraud. She stole money from an elderly lady.

All the victims here are female. All incidents were caused by a female.

Parental Alienation can lead to other crime. So come on good women, don't do it. By persisting with this abuse upon your children you are not doing anyone any favours, not even yourself.

Posted by: Paul Robertson at Nov 3, 2004 4:04:32 PM

The cause of most wars, fundamentally, is money. Somebody wants something that somebody else has, period. Although it is often costumed as "religious."

Posted by: Anne at Nov 3, 2004 4:29:12 PM

The yanks want oil, but no, wars are mostly religious. period

Posted by: Paul Robertson at Nov 3, 2004 6:19:24 PM

The parent who believes they can do it all alone will continue alone. What a sad prospect for their child(ren).

Posted by: Nik at Nov 3, 2004 6:51:08 PM

Well following the line of thinking of MOST of the men in this forum, the BEST people in the WORLD should be the ones raised as children in the patriarchal societies, that still rule most other parts of the world...

I'll remember that the next time I see one of those wonderful, properly socialized, father-raised men on tv sawing off the head of another one of you...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2004 7:01:03 PM

Well Anne, Paul could be right...

We might be forced to start treating all religious fanatics alike either, Christian or Muslim...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 3, 2004 7:03:28 PM

History shows Christians have been one of the worst offenders. Nowadays they tend more to be sexual deviants instead.

Posted by: Paul at Nov 3, 2004 8:17:37 PM

Look GUYS.......

You may not like the message Trish gives but NONE of you.... repeat NONE of you.... are qualified to argue against her. Have you been researching the trends, doing the reading for the last ten years or more? I doubt it..... Trish has. While you may not like her message...... you have no "right" to challenge or question her background. I also doubt any of you could prove her wrong with links and studies, etc.

You come here spouting and spewing..... because you KNOW she is right because you've lived it most likely. You are MAD at her..... when she is no more to blame for this mess than you or I.

You base your opinions on what happened to YOU or YOUR case ... she bases her analysis on what she reads and researches........ and quite frankly, whether you or I like it or not.... she's dead on.

You are apparently new to this blog........

IF you want to discuss issues...... fine..... let's discuss. But leave the name calling and slamming of Trish out of any discussion. It doesn't belong here..... it's rude and it makes you look really stupid.

Care to debate the issue of who benefits from these so called "rights" that you say you don't "get"? It's evident......... it's not the children..... it's the lawyers and therapists.. do you know WHY that is? Care to take a GUESS?????

Posted by: chief at Nov 3, 2004 8:40:50 PM

Well, what a great discussion.

I won't respond to all of it, but some things really do "demand" some kind of comment.

NYMOM: Men's contribution is little more than a fart, huh? (Would someone please volunteer to fart in NYMOM's vagina?) See if she enjoys it, and let's see how many babies she conceives from fart gas!

Soooo, women have such great control over the process so that they can spontaneously abort if they choose to, and also not get pregnant if they so choose... Women's falling pregnant or not is not involuntary! Yeah, right! Truth is, women have no more control over the process than men do, which is equally just as well! The fact that they have their bodies hijacked for 9 months by a growing embryo does not give them some greater credit for the fact that they give birth to babies, does it? They were born to give birth and suckle young, just as men were born to inseminate women. So? (In fact, women are born with all the eggs they'll ever have. Men manufacture fresh sperm continually. But again, so?)

And men take several months (as I understand it) to incubate each viable sperm, so what's the difference? Size? Size does matter, right? If it's numbers, men win hands down.

And Where on Earth do you get your absurd "99.9%" statistics? If you are really serious about your point of view, please back it up with evidence, as you appear to ignore the great ("Mark Twain?") truism: "There are three kinds of lies..." A statistic that blames men for 99.9% of all crime in the world (if prostitution is excluded) is just ludicrous - for a start, in many countries including NZ, prostitution is officially not even a crime, and as we all very well know, women must commit more than 0.1% of the crimes because they make up far more than 0.1% of prison populations.

Anyway, at least you contradict yourself by reporting that in the US there is 1 woman in jail for every 10 men, which by my simple maths makes women responsible for approximately 9.1% of the total crime in the US (leaving less than 90.9% to the men) - but women's crime will actually be higher because of the gender bias (chivalry) shown in all Western Courts and societies. If you factor for that, you'll find that women are responsible for quite a significant percentage of the total, and if you look at the gender bias in the LAWS of most western countries, the picture changes yet again. (For example, in NZ, it's illegal to smoke in the work place, and drink and drive, but it's NOT illegal for pregnant women to smoke and/or drink, in spite of the fact that the direct harm is provably far greater and more certain. That's an example of gender bias in the law, which if corrected would see a lot more women criminals.)

What's maybe even more interesting is that as the world becomes more and more "feminized", women become more and more like men (were), (just look at (or listen to) Helen Clark, Sian Elias & Margaret Wilson for examples) and curiously, more and more criminal. Recently here in NZ for example, we had one woman rip off $1.9?M from our Social Welfare dept, and let's not mention our art forging allegedly female (definitely not feminine) PM... And how about all the women now being convicted of sex crimes??? Female teachers bonking 10-13 year old boys and so on. Both here and in the US. Truth is, women are NO BETTER than men.

NYMOM, it is clear to me that you must work close to or in the US prison system. Don't ever forget that those guys, that you perhaps deal with on a daily basis are (mostly) criminals. They are not representative of the entire male population... Don't judge all men by the apparently undesirables locked away inside your jails. They are put there by the rest of society, because the rest of society doesn't want them running loose. That means other men, as well as women...

(There's a genetic variability theory I have (based on the "imperfect" Y chromosome) that could also account for this difference, but let's not go there right now.)

As for "Lesbian relationships are the least violent!" I take it you are a lesbian in a lesbian relationship, and that so far it has been a less violent experience for you? But apparently, in spite of unfounded, intuitive speculation that women are not as violent as men and therefore two lesbian wowmen together will be less violent still, the evidence suggests it's just not so. I've seen a lesbian friend of mine sporting the black eye her butch lover gave her, and I know she moved 600km to get away from her, but I've never seen any of my hetero- friends similarly embarrassed. I know it's anecdotal, but there is somewhere (not sure where) some proper research that confirms it.

Again, there's a brain (mis-)development theory of mine which would predict that lesbian women *might* be both violent (like men) and vicious (like women) making some of them a particularly nasty human variant (or deviant, if you prefer).

And who's ever seen two women in a real cat fight? Don't tell me they aren't violent! They are not just violent, they are vicious. Very frighteningly so. Of course, God equipped women with greater viciousness, to make up for their smaller size. As I said before, we're equal.

Anyway, NYMOM, if you are a typical example of women's thinking, I begin to see why we have this problem over child custody following separation.

William Congreve was absolutely right!

SO tell us, why are women better parents? Maybe, just maybe, they are not. Ever seriously considered the possibility?

As for you "chief"... Are you man or mouse?

Do you even deserve a response? "Spouting and Spewing"!!! What a joke.

Of course, the tripe and spouting and spewing posted here by women doesn't count. Only what you deem such, by men. This is normal, and H is for hypocrite.

And who (the Hell) are you to say that no one is qualified to argue with Trish - or "against her" as you put it? This is a fallacy known as a "False Call to Authority". Consider yourself sprung.

What about: "she bases her analysis on what she reads and researches". Ohhhh.... Riiiight!!! Bull! I'm willing to bet she bases her opinions primarily on her deeply engrained prejudices, that cloud and distort and cause her to "interpret" everything she reads, sees, hears and thinks. (To me) her writing clearly shows her anti-male bias. So:

As far as I'm concerned, we're all qualified. Trish is not God. Is she? Therefore, she is probably human, just a human, perhaps better than some of us, but still fallible and, judging by her writing, highly illogical and prejudiced. So I'll certainly take it upon myself to argue with her. The Truth should be apparent to all observers by the quality of the evidence and argument.

Anyway, I do agree with you that it's the lawyers and "the-RAPISTS" benefit from all this. But you've missed out Judges and Special Report writers (wacko shrinks) and all the other hangers-on.

But you've obviously missed the real point: why do women insist that they are superior parents, and yet they throw their own children to these identified wolves, when, if they genuninely were better parents, they would understand the harm that does to their own children, and would find a better way to deal with whatever problems they PERCEIVE? Hardly better parents, in reality, worse parents. So would you please explain what makes women better parents than men?

And why is it that it's only judges, lawyers, shrinks and quacks who benefit?

You seem to imply you know the answer. But you withhold it. It that some kind of power game?

Go ahead and enlighten us.

Meanwhile, my answer is that it's this way because the anti-social feminist/homosexual co-agenda has been hijacked and corrupted and perverted by lawyers and judges and so on, for their own short-sighted, greedy reasons. It's certainly not because that's the way men want it. At least, not here in NZ. True, there are many equally parasitic men (Judges, lawyers) working the system, but they are just pawns in the overall game, which grew out of feminism. Actually, I'd go further. It's partly this way because feminism has gone sour. Feminism has long passed it Use-By date. All the former feminists who had the potential to become captains of commerce, industry and politics have long since moved up, leaving just the unpalatable dregs behind. Now, the unskilled, undesirable dregs are becoming bitter, because feminism hasn't brought THEM the promised gains and benefits, and they are now levering their successful sisters to open nepotistic opportunities for them. (Well, that's been happening for quite a while here in NZ, as we can see by many of the incompetent female figureheads in the NZ Government and its bureaucracies - especially the judiciary, the MWA, CYFS and so on.)

Now tell us your opinion.

And also tell us why did no one really answer my question about what women particularly do that is so great? The only answer seems to be a negative response: BLAME MEN (AGAIN). That's about all you women seem to do. Why don't you look at the logs in your own eyes first?

Let's hear some genuine, intelligent female argument! Or am I right?


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 4, 2004 12:09:00 AM

"Yeah, right! Truth is, women have no more control over the process than men do, which is equally just as well!"

No, that's not right anymore...Men WISH it were so today, but it isn't...reproductive technology has progressed to the point that WOMEN have ALL the control over the process now, men none...that's why you're all going crazy spending your time trying to turn the clock back and have as many forms of birth control as possible made illegal...

It's all about getting yourselves back in charge again, so to speak...Well it's not going to happen, but I predict you'll keep trying for another generation or so before accepting the inevitable...

So keep knocking yourselves out...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2004 10:16:34 AM


I guess, by your lack of other counters, that you accept everything else I say?

Anyway, regarding:

"WOMEN have ALL the control over the process now, men none"

This looks to my like another one of those typical ABSOLUTE feminist statements - all BLACK and WHITE with no understanding of the subtlety or nuances of the reality.

So, HOW do women have ALL the control over the process?

I know a women who is desperate to get pregnant to her husband, but, in spite of everything he (fertile, with children by a previous marriage), and medical science, including attempted IVF and other fertility treatments has to offer, it looks like she has to accept the reality of a childless future. So, that's one simple example that doesn't fit with your statement.

Now tell me how women give birth if no man wants to offer his semen? How do they have TOTAL CONTROL? BTW, there's an excellent song by The Motels that you might adopt as your theme song...

And how is it that men have No Control over the process? In general, Yes, both women AND men can act to prevent pregnancy, but it still takes two to tango.

If you think Artificial Insemination is the answer, bully for you. There's no way you can ever REALLY get to know the donor father, or whether he's a decent guy or a complete pervert. If you want to remove all control over who you choose to father your own children, I can't think of a better way. Go For It!!!


Posted by: ttwtanbtt at Nov 4, 2004 6:47:10 PM

I accepted NOTHING you said...but only responded to refute you on the issues which could possibly be seen as having some logic connected with them as most of your post was just nonsense

Thus I'll ignore this particular post in it's entirety for the reason stated above...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 4, 2004 9:32:35 PM



Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 5, 2004 12:38:41 AM

Nice post ttwtabntt.. logical, sensible, entertaining.
Think you won this one hands down.

Posted by: Steve at Nov 5, 2004 5:17:34 AM

Right entertaining maybe if you appreciate low-end humour...

Logical and sensible...no way...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 5, 2004 11:10:53 AM

Thanks, Steve. I try... but I don't seem to be communicating successfully with NYMOM. Any suggestions as to how we can open the lines of communication there?

NYMOM, if you're still up for it, would you please explain to this "illogical" and non-sensible male and maybe others observing, HOW what I say is illogical and/or unreasonable?

For me, it's been a lifelong endeavour to be sensible, intelligent, rational, reasonable, fair, understanding and (not least) compassionate, and although I know some of my comments and responses are like a real slap in the face, they are not made for no reason (though it's sometimes "wrong.") I have found from repeated experience that often people who get the most upset by honest confrontation become upset because they realise that what they are saying is not actually true, and they don't know how to admit (to themselves or anyone else) that they are/were wrong. In this way, one is often able to identify Toxic Shame, which (usually) results from being deeply shamed during childhood, and often leads to a lifelong (but usually subconscious) feeling of unworthiness or inadequacy. Unfortunately, many people (in most cultures) suffer from this to some extent, and tragically, it leads such people to behave in shaming and injurious ways themselves, and to form intense and abusive relationships with other such people. (Like the abused growing into abusers.) And I should know... Sadly, that is what very many women, who resort to using their children as weapons against their children's fathers, are actually doing. They are simply (and ignorantly) perpetuating the abusive cycle (which maybe they learnt from their own MOTHER!) What's perhaps even more surprising is that many men actually seem to be able to rise above this with respect to their own children, though not necessarily with respect to their ex's.

Anyway NYMOM, please don't be scared to push back and explain your comments/criticisms.


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 5, 2004 7:48:02 PM

tttwtanbtt says:

For me, it's been a lifelong endeavour to be sensible, intelligent, rational, reasonable, fair, understanding and (not least) compassionate, and although I know some of my comments and responses are like a real slap in the face, they are not made for no reason (though it's sometimes "wrong.") I have found from repeated experience that often people who get the most upset by honest confrontation become upset because they realise that what they are saying is not actually true, and they don't know how to admit (to themselves or anyone else) that they are/were wrong. In this way, one is often able to identify Toxic Shame, which (usually) results from being deeply shamed during childhood, and often leads to a lifelong (but usually subconscious) feeling of unworthiness or inadequacy.

This is exactly what I was saying in response to your "attack" on Trish Wilson. You know what she is saying is true...... you don't like it.....but instead... you "abuse" her. It's the facts you don't like. ... the fact that the FR movement is actually hurting GOOD fathers far more than it is helping them. And that is what Trish is saying..... in part.

Posted by: chief at Nov 5, 2004 8:01:07 PM

Hey chef,

You'd be right if you weren't wrong! ;-))

Fact is, I'm new to this blog site, and I haven't read the vast majority of what Trish Wilson has written, but I've read enough to get a clear picture. Most, if not all, of what I have read so far is obviously very biased against men. She rubbishes, ridicules, belittles, reviles and condemns men and their activities and actions and seems to find very great delight in digging up dirt to prove her obviously bitter point of view about men. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that she actually likes men, but rather observe that she seems to consistently demonstrate a hatred and contempt of them. I can only assume that she blames men for some deep hurt that she has suffered.

However, I actually love women, as I think do most men (irrespective of the fact that we have all suffered hurt in relation to many). That's what chivalry is all about - looking out for and protecting all women, complete strangers included. It's part of our makeup. Where do you think the term "women and children first" comes from? It's from history, when all of society knew that the most important people to protect were, indeed, the women and children. It was upon them that the survival of the species rested. The reason is very simple: Biology....

Each woman can (as a rule) only gestate one child at a time, a process taking 9 months... Then suckle the child for a few months before she can become pregnant again. Over her entire lifetime, she may be able to produce perhaps 20-25 children (if she doesn't die in childbirth first).

And naturally, the children, who are the next generation, must be protected, or what's the point? If they don't survive, bye-bye to the species...

But men are a completely different matter. One man could impregnate a different woman every day, maybe more if needed. If there was only one man left, that would probably be enough to ensure the survival of the entire species. Over his lifetime, he could probably sire 20,000+ children. Compared with a woman's 20 or 25, the logic is very simple. Men were, effectively, "expendable", while women were vital breeding units. So, historically, it was save the children, save the women, to ensure our survival. Between the two, it's hard to say which is the more important from a survival point of view, but on that basis, men obviously came last (no pun intended).

But now, things have clearly changed. The world is overpopulated, and only by reducing our birthrate (and maybe even the total population) can we hope to survive. Because of that, women are now no longer essential breeding units. In fact, from that point of view, they are an outright liability, so it's just as well they now have the right and ability to prevent conception.

But, sadly for women, it puts their value on a par with men. They are now no longer more important, more valuable than men. Now, we can also send women off to war, where they can be blown to tiny bits by enriched uranium-tipped armour-piercing missiles just as easily as men can.

And maybe that's the truth that women really don't like, and don't want to see. For a million years, they have been cherished and revered by men, but now, well, they are just their equals, and not even as clever. For women, that's a great loss of status, and guess what? They don't like it!

What's more, the more I see of men, the greater and greater is my respect and admiration for them. Sure, there are some complete assholes and pychopaths among men, but hey, there are a lot of women, once you know them, who aren't so different.

But what I admire about men is their incredible love, and their commitment to their children. Women have no excuse not to love their own children with all their hearts and souls. (In fact, it's amazing to me how badly women can treat their own children.) The child has lived inside your bodies for 9 months, and you have felt their every movement and stirring. You have developed a great emotional attachment to and investment in that child, and when the fetus miscarries or is still-born, naturally, you are deeply bereaved. Then, to give birth to that child and nurture it at your own breast - what can be a more bonding, more involving, more loving and giving experience? (Again, it amazes me how nasty mothers can be...)

Men on the other hand have a completely different experience. They know there's a baby inside their woman's belly, but they don't even know for sure that it's their own. Women, at least, can always be sure about that (AHR etc excluded.) But apart from the fact that they can sometimes feel it move or kick, they can't really form much of a bond with it. Not only is it outside their own body, it's hidden inside the woman's.

So, it's not until the child is born that men really start to bond with the child (who may not even be their own, thanks to the facts about women's infidelity). But bond, they certainly do, if they get to spend any significant amount of time with them. And Hey, guess what? The child begins to form an even stronger bond with his/her apparent father.

Then, when the parents' relationship falls apart for whatever reason, the women too often think they are entitled to just smash both those relationships, (the Father with the child and the Child with the father) without so much as a second thought.

Are those women stupid, or what? Should they even be allowed to have custody of a child? I would certainly argue that it's highly questionable.

Anyway, I seem to have gotten off the track. I was responding to chef's suggestion that I'm "upset that Trish is telling 'the truth'." Namely:

> that the FR movement is actually hurting GOOD fathers far more than it is helping them.

The problem chef has is that I don't entirely disagree. I think some of what the Fathers' Rights guys (and girls/women) have done is unhelpful, counter-productive. I have even accused some of our local boys of "being part of the problem."

HOWEVER, there's an old Marketing truism, which says that ALL publicity is good publicity. It's been proven here. A certain shop, that was roundly condemned by a consumer rights programme, actually blossomed after the exposure on TV, simply because curious people went to have a look, and ended up customers. The power of Marketing. Same as murderers and other undeserving weirdos get rich selling their memoirs.

So it is with the FR movement. It raises the public awareness, even if some of what they do is bad. So I would deduce from this that you, chef, are also anti-male, and you just want to stop us from getting what is only right. You don't want to give up anything, you just want to keep what you have, and take more. Sounds like good old common greed to me.

And I'll close by saying that you too, have missed the point. You have done what many of these fathers you criticise do. You have focussed on them, and not on the party that really matters: THE CHILDREN.

The real question is is the FR movement really harming our children?

I say:

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Get those babies away from those FITH mothers. They are better off with a semi-competent father than a dud mother.

P.S. Glad you added:

> what Trish is saying..... in part.

Yes, maybe, IN PART. A very small part. The larger part is expressing her hurt and her hatred towards men. Cheers!

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 5, 2004 10:00:39 PM

"However, I actually love women, as I think do most men (irrespective of the fact that we have all suffered hurt in relation to many). That's what chivalry is all about - looking out for and protecting all women, complete strangers included. It's part of our makeup. Where do you think the term "women and children first" comes from? It's from history, when all of society knew that the most important people to protect were, indeed, the women and children. It was upon them that the survival of the species rested. The reason is very simple: Biology...."

What a spinner you are...The bottom line is that there is no proof in history of your statement that men in ANY society have treated smaller weaker beings any better then themselves EVER... that includes women, children and animals...

Actually to get an idea of how women and children (especially female children) were probably treated in our society in the past (which covers pretty our entire history until the 20th century) we can look at a few societies that still exist today on a pretty primative, almost medieval level...and in EVERYONE of them women and most children are treated like dirt...

Actually in places where we have allowed some of our modern technology to be used for medical care, the men in those societies have misused our technology to ascertain gender of the child while still in the womb and then had their wives abort female children, very similar to what went on in western societies when men exposed female children, so you could say primative society is more humane today as at least they abort as opposed to letting these poor little girl babies be born and then tossed out like old shoes (they way they still do in China, probably because men there are too stingy to pay for an abortion)...

"But men are a completely different matter. One man could impregnate a different woman every day, maybe more if needed."

Exactly the male investment is small, insignificant, can be replicated very easily so this population is extremely expendable...that's the ONLY sensible thing you've ever admitted to since you've been posting here...

"But now, things have clearly changed. The world is overpopulated, and only by reducing our birthrate (and maybe even the total population) can we hope to survive. Because of that, women are now no longer essential breeding units. In fact, from that point of view, they are an outright liability, so it's just as well they now have the right and ability to prevent conception."

Yes you are right the WORLD as a whole is overpopulated EVERYWHERE BUT THE PLACES YOU LIVE IN...and most of that other 'world's' population is male, due to male intervention into the balance of the sexes, thus ensuring more males, the more aggressive of our species, are allowed to survive to adulthood...They exist in places where they have scarce resources compared to us and would like nothing better then to show up on your doorstep and take over your house, your job or other resources, your women, probably tossing out your kids like old shoes, since they'll want their own and don't want your wife or g/f spending any time or resources on some other guy's kid...

So once again you have totally mistated the position of the men in western society...maybe you really believe what you are saying...so I almost hate to inform you that yes, YOU are facing extinction...so women are more important then men in our particular situation and you are going to have to start making a lot of concessions to her in the future, unlike your counterparts in the third world...

Okay, so get used to it and instead of spending so much time lauding your buddies you better start thinking of ways to make things easier for the women in your life as hanging around with a group of male idiots in front of the telly all day isn't going to grow the population any... actually it might retard it as no woman is going to want to be around a guy who's always moaning and complaining about women all the time...

Actually with all of your spare time that you have to spend hanging out with the guys why don't you get a p/t job...then you can pay for a few extras for your children...make things a little easier for your ex, that way she might go and have a few more with another guy...keeping the population 'up' so to speak...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 7, 2004 12:24:29 AM


How sad.

You think I'm a spinner. What are you?

I just hope you live to see the next couple of decades.

As I've said many times in this Blogsite, Men and Women are Different, but Equal.

But you think women are superior.

In what ways?


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 7, 2004 1:37:35 AM

Well in getting along with one another collectively as opposed to starting wars all the time...yes we are better then men...

In a society where technology has given us the power to literally destory the world if we continue starting wars all over the place, aggression in men, which at one point probably served some evolutionary useful purpose, has now become a menace to life itself on our planet...

So we need to start raising little boys to behave more like little GIRLS to ensure that life itself on this planet isn't threatened by continuing male aggression...

The first step in this is to forbid the watching of sports events on TV for children younger then 18...and no participation in them either... no unsupervised contact with men, who haven't been socialized properly which is about 99.9% of you, as there could be a tendency to pass along these aggressive mannerisms to the next generation...

A bad example, so to speak...

TV viewing limited as well since men dominate the media there and are continuously giving bad subliminal messages to boys, as well as little girls...This is a previously unaddressed issue also...I mean how many little girls will grow up NOT realizing that their boobs were not created simply to be ogled by men...but really exist to nourish their own children?

Maybe in this way, we could cut down on women wasting money on endless boob jobs trying to attract male idiots...as well as teach boys, from a young age, to channel their energies in more productive ways as opposed to their fathers...

Hope I answered your question, although like much that you post, it was pure nonsense...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 7, 2004 11:41:07 AM

> Well in getting along with one another
> collectively as opposed to starting wars
> all the time...yes we are better then men...

Yep, I agree with you on that one point - women are better at "networking" and scheming together. Except when it comes to wartime... Then men seem to work very well together. ;-)) When the situation is truly desperate, men come through.

> In a society where technology has given
> us the power

Hold on a minute! Last time you referred to technology, it was going to make all men redundant. Is this confused, dis-integrated, irrational thinking?

> to literally destory the world if we
> continue starting wars all over the
> place,

Maybe! But probably not. The most likely cause of the destruction of the planet will be environmental collapse from overpopulation and the overuse of environmentally harmful chemicals. Just look at what's happening in the way of climate change right now. If we don't all get wiped out by some nasty plague or bird flu or similar.

aggression in men, which
> at one point probably served some
> evolutionary useful purpose,


has now
> become a menace to life itself on our
> planet...

Only a City Girl would seriously think that! Being of rural origins myself, I know the importance of maintaining genetic diversity and vibrancy in the gene pool. (I won't explain it here...)

> So we need to start raising little boys
> to behave more like little GIRLS

Uh-HUH!!! So you think that's really the answer???

To turn little boys into GIRLS! Yeah, RIGHT!!!

You know the old saying: The best laid plans of mice and WOmen...?

Our PC Government has been trying to do that down here for the last 20 years. And, because you feminists are a bit simple-minded and don't really have a clue about the complexities of human growth and development, it's turned into a real social disaster...

NZ now has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the world... Male and Female, FWIW. Also of teenage pregnancies, teenage sexually transmitted diseases, teenage abortions and so on.

But it's actually much worse than that. All this nambie-pambie treatment of boys has actually had pretty much the opposite effect to what was expected or intended. Their educational attainment levels are WAY down, so basically, all this feminist teaching style does is produce morons, who are going to be bigger, more violent problems in future. (I presume you know that intelligence and education are the biggest counters to violent behaviour we have?)

Worse still, when the male hormones kick-in at puberty, these young men REALLY lose control. I don't know if you know what teenagers are normally like, but down here, they become seriously anti-social. It's a huge REACTION to being pussied around through their childhood. So a lot of them turn into ultimate speed-freaks who drive hotted up cars far too fast around the city streets, and have illegal drag meetings and do burn-outs and taunt the cops and do high speed races away from the police (and Yes, some of them do get killed. There was one this week, in a chase that lasted 31 seconds, according to the police.)

> to ensure that life itself on this planet
> isn't threatened by continuing male
> aggression...

If you want to understand the answer to this problem, FIRST, you have to understand yourself. You see, females blaming men only exacerbate the problem. But you can't see that, because you don't realise what a victim mentality you have.

> The first step in this is to forbid the
> watching of sports events on TV for
> children younger then 18...and no
> participation in them either...

REALLY!!!? ALL sports events? Ya gotta be kidding! So, no chess, no ping pong, no baseball! They are too violent, of course!

> no unsupervised contact with men,

Pissing myself rolling about on the floor laughing...! I would just LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to see the result of a community raised like that, in 20 - 30 years time! The Bible reports that God was so disgusted with Sodom and Gomorrah that he nuked them off the face of the planet. Yeah, go for it!

> who haven't been socialized properly

Again, I have to agree! 99.9% of the entire human race has not been socialised properly.

> which is about 99.9% of you, as there
> could be a tendency to pass along these
> aggressive mannerisms to the next generation...

Yadda, yadda, yadda... Projection!


> I mean how many little girls will grow up
> NOT realizing that their boobs were not
> created simply to be ogled by men...
> but really exist to nourish their own children?

DOH!!! The simple-minded feminist approach to life, Yay!

Don't you understand sexual attraction?

Don't you know that round breasts (and round bums) represent maindenhood, fecundity, reproductive potential?

If women are not attractive enough, where will they be getting those babies to nourish FROM? A test tube? You ought to read some of Budd Hopkins...

> Maybe in this way, we could cut down on
> women wasting money on endless boob jobs
> trying to attract male idiots...

It (a) takes one to know one;
(b) takes one to want to attract one.

> as well as teach boys, from a young age,
> to channel their energies in more
> productive ways as opposed to their fathers...

Well, let me tell you, your sisters' over-simplistic efforts down here certainly ARE NOT working...

> Hope I answered your question,

Yep, very well, thank you. I understand partly why the world is such a mess. People who think they know simple answers to very complex questions...

> although
> like much that you post, it was pure nonsense...

Yeah, yeah. SO tell me, WHAT IS "PROJECTION"?

Can you quote any more ways that women are better than men?


Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 8, 2004 11:25:53 PM

Are Gender Feminists Afflicting Our Society With Anti Male Propaganda?

By Lori Ann Chauvette
Published: Thursday, February 24, 2005

There has been a war going on for years, right under our noses. It's sometimes violent, but oftentimes it's a war of words. It's been going on here in the United States for years, but only in the last few years has it been more prevalent.

It's a war on gender.

More specifically, it's a war of women against men. We don't see it on a casual basis, but we do see it in other ways - education, the workforce and our personal lives. And it's time to stop and embrace the changes that have been made since the 1960s and 1970s instead of exclusively focusing on the few things we haven't achieved.

In the beginning, the feminist movement made great strides in making sure women had rights in American society. But the problem now is that along with those strides, women have taken a step back because of those women that I commonly call "gender feminists".

The definition of a gender feminist is that of a woman who hates men so much that she's willing to advocate under the veil of rights for women but whose real agenda is to malign men. They are not to be confused with the women who are honestly making an effort to make sure there are equal rights for both men and women.

When I used to work for this paper between 1993 and 1995, I had written a few editorials about the P.C. movement at that time. I wasn't liked by the gender feminists on campus because I spoke up on the ridiculousness of it. One of my favorite letters was when I was accused of "wanting to be a man."

Then there was the night that I got a call at three in the morning from some drunken woman who tried to argue with me over an article I had written about school mascots. She somehow decided that this was the perfect opportunity to inform me that "women make up 51 percent of the minority" (I had to restrain myself from asking her, "Doesn't that make us the majority, then?").

These were my first encounters with the gender feminists. Over the years since then, I have seen many examples about how their influence has affected many aspects of our life, because they are the loudest voice. However, a lot of these changes have affected other aspects of our society negatively, and men are paying the price.

Christina Hoff Summers, in her book "The War Against Boys," focuses on the aspect of the gender wars that has been having the most affect on boys - education. Boys today are less likely to go on to college, and are more likely to be put into detention or reprimanded just because they are boys.

There's a kind of thinking going on in the educational society that boys should be little girls because their behavior is "not correct" in today's political environment. And I see evidence of it around here, as well - there are more women than men on this campus. And guys get criticized for being, well, guys. But I also know it's true that when it comes to innuendo and "dirty talk," women can make the dirtiest guy blush.

Another aspect that's often seen is in the law. Many of you might have heard about the guy dressed as Batman on the ledge of Buckingham Palace, who was protesting for father's rights. Although it's probably not the most effective way to get your point across, he did have a point - fathers have fewer rights in American society after a divorce or separation, seen strictly as a financial windfall for the mother than as an important person in the child's life.

I've read many stories online of terrific fathers being denied visitation because the mother, in her bitterness, either made accusations against the father of sexual or physical abuse that weren't true or simply denied visitation to the other parent. They then call them "bad fathers" because they've been worn down due to being denied access to their kids. A friend of mine had the former happen to him, and he hasn't seen his daughter in a number of years because of it.

More evidence of the bias against men exists when you hear the term "deadbeat dad" in the news. Although there are some men who deliberately don't pay child support, most are just guys trying to make ends meet after being forced to pay large amounts of child support that they can't afford.

What is often ignored is the women who don't have custody who refuse to pay child support - no one mentions the "deadbeat mom," because it's not "politically correct." These women are often allowed to get away with not paying because they are the mothers.

The battle lines have been drawn, but I refuse to fight in this war. I have many men in my life - from my father to my brother to my fiancé to many more - that I care for and respect too much to want to see them maligned in these ways. I'm hoping that by the time my nephew is in college the war will be over. At the rate it's going right now, no one is winning.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 24, 2005 8:10:35 PM

Well, my ex now wants me to sign an out-of-court settlement in relation to her malicious and vindictive application for a Protection Order against me, a Protection Order that she is applying for after 15 year since she left me (20 Jan, 1990), and her relentless continued attempt at the emotional abuse upon her (our) daughter. But am I silly enough to sign her form? Of course not, I am most comfortable defending this and going to court (I am representing myself, as I have done in the past). Yesterday the court sent a letter to me with a date for the hearing - it's 2 days, 3-4 May 2005, so here we come courtroom! This time I am well prepared to show the court the true nature of my ex, and they will learn all about her vindictiveness toward me and the many other people over the years... yes even her many past female so-called 'friends' have been stabbed in the back by her.

BTW, I was interviewed by TVNZ last week for an up-and-coming TV doco on Paternity in New Zealand.

The tide is finally starting to turn for the nasty, vindictive mothers, and about time too. They have been destroying the system's intentions that is supposed to be there to protect those who really need it, and I accept some do. But many mothers use it unnecessarily - as a weapon and punishment against a loving father (and the kids). It appears the courts are finally waking up to that now though, and not before time. We can now begin hope for a better future for all parents (hopefully these mothers will have the intelligence to learn... eventually) and our children, finally! But there is still much work to be done to get an un-biased justice system.


Posted by: Paul (again) at Feb 24, 2005 8:28:01 PM

"...no one mentions the "deadbeat mom," because it's not "politically correct." These women are often allowed to get away with not paying because they are the mothers."

The reason no one mentions it is because it is too incendiary to bring up in our racially divided society...It appears when you break out the statistic by race, most of the people who do NOT pay child support or pay very little are African-Americans...Actually if you break out the data by race and gender white women are the best on-time payers of child support, white men second after them, black women dead last, somewhere in the single digits...

So to keep the 'peace' these stats are often just buried and mothers not paying overlooked...

So people who come from New Zealand and don't know what they are talking about should probably just shutup...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 24, 2005 8:36:34 PM

paul, as a non-custodial mom, your smears against "nasty, vindictive mothers" doesn't score any points with me.

Vindictive ex who takes his crap out on our kid, blocking visitation? Bingo, dude. Got the t-shirt. And it's a dude who's the vindictive ex. You think that custodial dads are any big improvement? They're not. Depending on the study, some 70% of them have abusive backgrounds, so of course they pull out all the stops when THEY finally get custody. All those evil games the moms presumably play? Preschool stuff when the dads get going. For all the FR propaganda on how great these guys are, I have NEVER, in all the years I've been custodial, had a non-custodial mom report that the father was fair and supportive of her relationship to the children. Not once. Whereas only a minority of men assert they have problems.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 24, 2005 8:53:23 PM


I accept the reverse can and sometimes does occur. That's also why we need Shared Pareinting, and not "the winner takes all" mantality that we have at present.


Posted by: Paul at Feb 24, 2005 9:03:31 PM

Oh, and for the one who couldn't think of any women composers. You apparently know nothing about musicology and modern scholarship that's unearthing many previously unknown or little known women composers. Here's five outstanding women composers right off the top of my head:1)Hildegaard von Bingen 2) Clara Schumann 3) Fanny Mendelsohn 4) Cecile Charminade 5)Amy Beach. If you read any of the biographies on these women, they labored under enormous difficulties (Poor Clara had a husband with severe mental illness and I forget how many kids - more than 10? After Robert's suicide, she supported the family as a touring concert pianist - not easy for a woman in the 19c.) And unlike your pure bigotry in refusing to recognize or listen to the women composers who exist, I will freely acknowledge that Robert Schumann is one of the truly great. And some of Clara's string trios are absolute gems. Too bad you'll never "lower" yourself to listen to them.You're really missing a treat.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 24, 2005 9:23:16 PM

I gotta hand it to you, you are very amusing! :-)

Posted by: Paul at Feb 24, 2005 9:40:14 PM

Since this thing has drifted all over the place, I'll address another random comment - something about dads being safer with kids.

Not if they're babies.

I just happened to be doing some research on shaken baby syndrome today. This is what the fact sheet from the New York State Department of Health (not any great feminist organization) has to say:

What Is Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS)?

* SBS refers to a group of injuries that result from being violently shaken
* The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states that the shaking "is so violent that competent individuals observing the shaking would recognize it as dangerous"
* Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and retinal hemorrhage are the most common injuries seen with SBS
* SBS injuries may result in: brain damage, blindness, paralysis, seizures, and death

Why Does The Shaking Occur?

* The number one reason for shaking a baby is inconsolable crying
* Shaking usually occurs because caregivers become frustrated and lose control

How Serious Is SBS In The United States?

* An estimated 1,000 to 3,000 cases of SBS occur each year
* One shaken baby in four dies as a result of their injuries
* SBS accounts for an estimated 10-12% of all deaths due to neglect
* Over 60% of SBS victims are male
* The average age of SBS victims is between 3 and 8 months of age

Who Are The Perpetrators?

* 80% of perpetrators are males in their early twenties
* Predominantly, the abuser is the baby's father or the mother's boyfriend
* Female perpetrators tend to be the child's caregiver, not the mother

How Serious Is The Problem In New York State?

* Between October 1996 and December 1997, 42 hospitalizations were identified
* 83% of cases were diagnosed with TBI
* 17% of cases died while in the hospital

Who Are The Victims Of SBS In New York State?

* 69% of cases in New York State were male, 31% female
* About 80% of victims are under the age of one
* The average age of SBS victims was 6 months old
* 1/3 of all cases were residents of New York City


For more information, please contact the Bureau of Injury Prevention at Injury@health.state.ny.us

Well, really makes you want to do joint custody with all those unmarried teenage dads, doesn't it?
Especially with baby boys....

Posted by: silverside at Feb 24, 2005 9:56:34 PM

Yip, it is common knowledge in New Zealand that shaking a baby is a big No No. In fact, a few years back they ran a TV campaign about this. Still, anyone with the smallest bit of grey matter knew that already, and the rest of the minority population won't stop regardless.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 24, 2005 10:35:33 PM

"Hildegaard von Bingen"

I actually know of her too and like her as well.

But this is one of the things men frequently hold against women. Supposedly the same drive that makes men great composers, leading in advances in science, architecture, laws, etc., also operates by driving them into waging savage wars, becoming serial killers, etc...

So supposedly it's the force that builds civilization...

...but it's also the force that destroys it...

Frankly I could live with a more moderated 'force' in building civilization albeit somewhat slower, but without all the up and downs of some schizo male acting out all his demons upon everyone around him...

In essence I think I'm saying thanks, but no thanks to Mozart and Eistein if I have to accept along with them, World War II, possibly III, endless raping, assaults, attempts to separate women from their children and other antisocial behavior that appears to go hand in glove with the good produced by men...

I say freakin keep it already...it's just not worth the cost...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 12:08:16 AM

The "Feather on the Breath of God" CD of Hildegaard's work is excellent and was very popular over here in UK.
I suppose to be fair we would have to admit that the modern era has shown women to be musically v. productive so past repressions and the nature of establishing oneself in the pre-modern era does explain why there are few well-known classical composers among the ladies.
Still- back on point; I agree with Paul that there must be more shared parenting among good, decent dads- if only to match the fact that the children's mothers do allow us to parent 50% of the time in practice so it is entirely wrong to say this should change on a break-up. I parent 50% of the time and my only concern is for that to be protected by law and my child's relatinship with me protected from rupture through moveaway or deliberate cessation of contact by mother
. Whether a change in the law is necessary I cannot say (never having been through the courts) but this certainly seems to be the impression from many men.

Posted by: Steve at Feb 25, 2005 6:16:02 AM

Steve, you come across as a pretty reasonable and moderate chap. I could see the two of us sitting down over a pint of ale (maybe a diet soda for me) and shooting the breeze. But look over the filthy, name calling vendettas that proceed you. This is exactly why I do no work with FR organizations. I think they attract a lot of folks with a lot of lose screws, people who are convinced that women can't compose music or take out garbage (!) (I know, I don't get it either.) When these are the people proposing solutions, I tend to look at what they have said before, and I'm just a wee bit suspicious.

It can be argued that all movements attract the crazies. But at least in some, their is some effort to weed out these people so they don't drive the agenda. Not here.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 25, 2005 7:34:19 AM

Great, another angry troll. It's no wonder I won a Spanglemonkey award for "Worst Psycho-Loon Commenters."

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 25, 2005 9:10:24 AM

Thanks Silverside. I am suspicious of extremists on either side of this argument. I certainy agree with you that FR movements do attract some less-than-attractive guys (for instance some guy called Dr Pellng who holds himself up as the voice of reason and decency against "secret courts" seems to have been married to about 4 different women from third-world countries)and guess the same applies on the feminist side of the fence. I must admit to being somewhat concerned about an automatic presumption of 50/50 which is what F4J argue for; I would like that if I myself were involved but I wonder whether that is in fact appropriate for most guys; but again this may demonstrate some kind of unfounded prejudice in me against other guys. I actually think F4J have attracted such support here because of the entire daftness of our judges in many cases; perhaps our law will work without such a reform as F4J wish for. The answer may lie with the younger crowd of judges who seem more in tune with how families are organised today (our senior judges are still inthe nursery with nanny)who will take a firm but sensible line, which for me should pretty much follow the manner of childcare the parties have adopted pre-separation.

Posted by: Steve at Feb 25, 2005 9:23:21 AM

The problem from my perspective, is that tarring each side as equally "extremist" is something of an easy dodge, and keeps us from really looking at what each side does or advocates.

This morning's paper brought another story from Texas (yes, Texas. where else?) of some dad who was packing heat and opened fire in the courthouse square. He was mad about being brought to court for unpaid child support. Not only killed the ex, but someone else, I believe.

I don't have time to see what the Texas FR sites are saying today, but I bet that somewhere, the guy is being deified as a hero.

On the other hand, if this had been a mother, I know of NO mother advocate who would have a word of support for this lunatic. Support a mom who is packing enough heat to supply a small army and opening fire in a public square? NO THANKS.

Someone will scream well, what about Andrea Yates?

Feminist support for her was very ambiguous and what little there was had as much to do with mental illness as gender. She was clearly and unambiguously psychotic. Not "momentarily insane" but crazy as in being treated with Haldol crazy.

A few years ago, here in New York State, a man pushed a woman in front of a subway train and killed her. He didn't know her, there was no dv link. He was a man who had been in and out of what passes as the mental health "system" for years. I suppose a feminist "extremist" could have played this up as an example of femicide and patriarchy. But I don't think anyone ever did. Partly because feminist are progressives, and they know what a mess mental health services are in this country, with deinstitutionalization of the hospitals and no community health services taking their place. This case resulted in something called "Kendra's Law," which provides for treatment of mental patients even if it is against their "will." Whether this is entirely good legislation veers off into something entirely different, but that's what the result was. Not some vendetta against killer men.

Plus, I just NEVER see any feminists I have EVER known call for the mass rape of men, or for having men's right to vote revoked. Just doesn't happen. Feminists get angry about the injustices that are inflicted against women. But for better or for worst, no one ever suggests a campaign of terror to equal the score. Whereas men's groups do, even if their grievances largely border on the delusional (like feminists are responsible for circumcision. Huh?)

Posted by: silverside at Feb 25, 2005 10:28:43 AM

Just for additional info, here's a short article on the latest Texas mayhem. OK ladies, let's see a show of hands. If a mom was packing an AK 47 assault rifle and not only killed the ex but a good samaratan trying to assist the son (in addition to wounding 4 others including her own kid) would anybody support her? Pass a petition? Blog in her support? Oh, you all want to pass, because you're pretty sick right now? Thought so. Because basic decency and respect for others is a feminist value.

Gunman Kills Ex-Wife, Bystander in Texas

Fri Feb 25, 6:48 AM ET

U.S. National - AP

By ANABELLE GARAY, Associated Press Writer

TYLER, Texas - A man angry about being sued for unpaid child support opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and a man trying to help the couple's adult son.

The gunman, 43-year-old David Hernandez Arroyo Sr., was killed Thursday afternoon in a gun battle with officers a few miles away after wounding his son and three law enforcement officers, one critically.

The son had been acting as a mediator between his parents, police said.

Police estimated that Arroyo, who had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, shot 50 rounds in the historic town square. He was wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest.

"He definitely came well-armed and prepared," police Chief Gary Swindle said. "We do understand there had been some threats made by him the previous week."

But the attorney representing Maribel Estrada, 41, said he doesn't believe she thought her ex-husband was dangerous. Estrada worked at a meat packing plant in Tyler and raised a 17-year-old and a 6-year-old with the help of her eldest son, Joshua Wintters said.

The other victim, Mark Alan Wilson, 52, was credited by authorities with saving the life of David Hernandez Arroyo Jr., who was listed in fair condition at a hospital with leg wounds. A sheriff's deputy, Sherman Dollison, 28, was in critical condition after being shot in the liver, lungs and legs; a sheriff's lieutenant and a Tyler police detective were treated and released.

"One of the deputies at the scene said if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson," said Sheriff J.B. Smith, "the son would be dead."

Friends who visited the son in the hospital Thursday night said he told them that his father was always open about having a collection of weapons.

Aurea Seanez said the son told them, "And look now, he used them on us."

Wilson, a gun enthusiast who once owned a shooting range, intervened after Arroyo killed his ex-wife, witnesses said. Swindle, the police chief, said Wilson shot at Arroyo several times but his rounds weren't penetrating the armor.

"They traded shots, missing each other, and then the gunman hit Wilson and Wilson went down," Tyler Morning Telegraph publisher Nelson Clyde III said in Friday's editions of the newspaper. Clyde watched the shooting from a nearby restaurant.

"The gunman walked up to Wilson and shot him while he was on the ground," Clyde said. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was sickening."

Estrada and Arroyo divorced in January 2004 after 22 years of marriage. Wintters wouldn't say why the two divorced.

Tyler, the seat of Smith County, is a city of about 86,000 located about 95 miles east of Dallas. Tyler calls itself the "Rose Capital of the Nation" and attracts about 100,000 visitors each October to the Texas Rose Festival.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 25, 2005 10:50:14 AM

On the other hand, how many trolls here are busy canonizing the latest "martyr" to the cause?

Posted by: silverside at Feb 25, 2005 10:52:33 AM

Oh, and my nomination for male hero? Mark Alan Wilson, who lost his life trying to protect the life of another. "Agrieved" hubby shooting off 50 rounds can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 25, 2005 11:06:10 AM

Hey you Feminazi bitches if you want to pick a fight with F4J then I would like to you ask as Dad4justice 3 questions;-
1. Do you struggle with a deep hatred and mistrust of men?
2. Women who take on an overly aggressive and rigid style of relating to people e.g Queen lesbian Helen Clark . Do they find relief , securing safety,and taking revenge are what make homosexuality appealing?
3.With your negative comments about F4J do you hope to gain a sense of completeness and relief to the aching void in your souls?

What about New Zealand children you selfish scum.

Posted by: Peter Burns at Feb 25, 2005 4:44:59 PM

Gee, it's no surprise I won a Spanglemonkey award for Worst Psycho-Loon Commenters.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 25, 2005 4:50:35 PM

Trish, are these guys too dense to appreciate irony or what?

I do believe I said something before about how I can't support FR people because of the name calling and rampant hostility. So it's back to that word that makes no sense as the Nazis despised the left and feminism (but they keep repeating it like playground bullies). I'm accused of being a man-hater (because I wouldn't support a mother with an AK-47???),and somewhere, homophobia came zooming out of no where, which had as much to do with the topic as the price of tea in china. And you want to know why I'm not too interested in listening to arguments regarding 50/50 joint custody from people like this? See Exhibit A above.

Better questions.

1)What's your problem with women? I have no problem with men. I have problems with bullies, abusers, violent people and criminals, and I don't care about what gender they are. And don't insult the men I love by implying that real men are that way. Real men have the confidence to speak their mind without smears and namecalling and they also respectfully listen to others without being all prickly and hostile. They fact that you don't or can't has less to do with masculinity then the fact that you were probably raised in an environment where you never learned to get along with other people.

2) Overly aggressive and hostile? Look over my posts. Do you see any namecalling? I quote facts regarding Clara Schumann and from the New York State Department of Health. What is up with you? You hate piano trios? Maybe you should listen to one - calm you down a little. You do in fact come across as extremely hostile.

3) Aching void in my soul because I don't support militant intimidation tactics? Did you read too much Nietzche in college? Take the uber-mensch stuff somewhere else.

Posted by: silverside58 at Feb 25, 2005 6:12:23 PM

"Still- back on point; I agree with Paul that there must be more shared parenting among good, decent dads- if only to match the fact that the children's mothers do allow us to parent 50% of the time in practice so it is entirely wrong to say this should change on a break-up. I parent 50% of the time and my only concern is for that to be protected by law and my child's relatinship with me protected from rupture through moveaway or deliberate cessation of contact by mother.

Whether a change in the law is necessary I cannot say (never having been through the courts) but this certainly seems to be the impression from many men."

Well that probably IS what is going to happen with you Steve; and actually that is what happens with MOST of the people I know WITHOUT entering the courtroom...

Imagine that...

But the cases MOST of these FR types seem to be talking are not like that...

You and your wife are BOTH professionals, both working, probably making similar salaries, you are ALREADY doing 50/50, or at least you claim you are, so that scenario could EASILY and probably will EASILY morph into a Joint Custody scenario, if you should ever divorce...

But many of these litigated cases appear to be very different...

They appear to be women who were the primary caretakers of children, staying home with them and losing out on educational and career opportunities to devote themselves to raising their children AND their husbands were fine with it UNTIL DIVORCE...then suddenly the husband decides he wants Joint Custody, no child support changing hands, no alimony, mom will just run out there and get any old job, rent a room somewhere and we'll both pay for the kids' expenses when they are with us...

Clearly that scenario is going to cause problems, how can it not...

I mean men cannot expect women to just be struck with all the negatives of having children and believe that women are going to continue to do this...

What will happen, which is what is happening already, is that less women will have children; instead they will focus on building a career just like men do now, and families will either be far smaller or non-existence for certain classes.

And I hate to say it but MOST governments in western societies and other public policy groups that care about these things do NOT want this to happen...They wish to have a strong middle and/or professional class in our nation...not too top heavy or bottom heavy with either very rich or very poor...but the vast middle of the bell-shaped curve reproducing and building strong stable societies...

So that's the problem Steve...I know that F4J and perhaps you don't care about that...but governments HAVE to worry about trends like that...it's their job...

AND when too many women decide to just follow a career path, then we have too few children to morph into future citizens, so we might NEED to encourage more of them to wish to be stay-at-home mothers without worrying that they are going to be tossed out on the street w/o their children and having to pay child support they cannot afford because they made the choice to have a child and be a stay-at-home mom...

Those are the sorts of women who build societies, Steve, producing our police, firemen, soldiers, nurses, teachers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers...and maybe even one or two lawyers...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 6:46:08 PM

"Many children in history were raised by their fathers because the mothers often died in childbirth."

This is a lie...many of you dumped your kids on some other woman to take care of for you when that happened, often even forcing a female sibling, some as young as 10 or so into assuming the housekeeper/primary caretaker role...

History is also just full of the classical "maiden aunt" usually some unmarried female relative who moved in for room and board to take care of the children for you...

Men have NEVER in any society, in any age, on any continent raised children...NEVER...

Even today in primative societies men do NOT raise children...

Sorry but this is a distortion of the historical role of men in families and an outright lie....

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 6:53:27 PM

"...(for instance some guy called Dr Pellng who holds himself up as the voice of reason and decency against "secret courts" seems to have been married to about 4 different women from third-world countries)..."

Yes, this is interesting that you mentioned this too as a lot of non-custodial mothers here in the US are recently immigrated women...

Is this like a scam of some kind by these men; tricking these women here with promises of marriage and a family and then as soon as they have kids divorce them and get custody...maybe it's like a public benefits scam of some kind at least in the US...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 6:57:21 PM

Oh by the way, did anyone get a look at the NY crazy that got like two lines in the news today...

I guess people were so busy covering Texas that they missed this guy...

He killed his sister-in-law (mother of an 8 year old) and hid her body in the trunk of a car...It turned out she was PREGNANT WITH HIS BABY and he didn't want his brother and parents to find out...so he killed her...

This is the second pregnant woman killed in a week YET they keep telling us that that maternal homicide series was just bs...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 25, 2005 7:06:25 PM

Female sexual abuse hidden
Herald Sun
John Ferguson
15 nov 04

SEXUAL abuse by women may be escaping punishment because of their victims' embarrassment and society’s failure to understand the gravity of the crimes.

A major study is investigating the impact of female sexual abuse in Victoria amid concerns that women -- including mothers, teachers and childcare workers -- are abusing children at greater rates than once believed.

Melbourne researcher Rebecca Deering said her preliminary inquiries suggested the stigma of being abused by a woman stopped victims reporting the offence.

Ms Deering said that gender differences may mean that society diminishes the extent to which women can offend.

"It has been argued that women are incapable of performing sexual acts with children due to physical make-up," she said.

"However, women do engage in such acts with children and research suggests that such abuse may be occurring at higher rates than once believed."

Ms Deering was speaking after a judge decided against jailing mother-of-three Karen Ellis, 37, for having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old student.

The student denied that the affair had affected him, but that didn't stop a backlash when Ellis -- a former physical education teacher -- escaped jail despite having sex six times with the boy.

Ms Deering wants to talk to more victims of female sexual abuse for her study, which is part of her doctorate of forensic psychology at Deakin University. Ms Deering said early replies to the study showed a big impact on victims.

"Based upon those, the impact has been extremely damaging," she said.

"They've basically written that it has had a huge psychological impact on their lives, that they've never spoken about it for years and years.

"And (they) didn't even realise until a lot of them had begun to speak about it that it was sexual abuse.

"I guess they lived in a world of confusion around what's happened, what's going on -- is it abuse or was it based upon motherly love and that kind of thing?

"It often takes years of therapy for someone to come forth and talk about it."

The Ellis case has reignited debate about the role of women in sex abuse.

The Australian Council of State School Organisations and Crime Victims Support Association called for a review of the way such cases were handled.

The Ellis case was compared with disgraced tennis coach Gavin Hopper, who was jailed for at least two years over an affair with a 14-year-old female student.

Ms Deering said there was a substantial body of research on the effects of women sexually abusing children, although evidence suggested not all victims suffer psychological damage. They include emotional, behavioural and sexual dysfunction.

She said male victims had reported that the effects of the abuse lingered.

"Male victims have reported that the abuse had an intense and traumatic impact on their lives, both at the time of the abuse and for several years following the incident," Ms Deering said.

"Female victims have reported identity confusion, sexual and relationship difficulties, anxiety, depression, self-mutilation, suicidal gestures, low self-esteem and personality disorders.

"Other studies have found that victims can suffer from feelings of guilt and self-blame, post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative states, development of antisocial behaviour and victimisation of others, suicidal (thoughts and) interpersonal difficulties, including lack of ability to trust others. . ."

Ms Deering said there was evidence to suggest that victims of female offenders suffered as badly as victims of male offenders.

Anyone interested in joining the study can call 9251 7630.

© Herald and Weekly

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 3:40:17 PM

Woman, 29, accused of sex with boy, 8
Sydney Morning Herald
November 9, 2004 - 7:16AM

A woman faces charges in Connecticut of having a sexual relationship with an eight-year-old boy whom US investigators said she considers her boyfriend.

Tammy Imre, 29, was arrested on Friday and charged with sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. A judge today set bond at $US250,000 ($A328,040).

Police began investigating in September after the boy's mother discovered a letter Imre had written, in which she tells the boy she did not "want anyone but you".

She continued: "Now, tomorrow it's supposed to rain, you can come over(and) we can (you know what)."

Police said the boy, the playmate of Imre's seven-year-old daughter, initially denied doing anything with Imre because he feared getting into trouble. He later admitted having sexual relations with her.

Police said Imre told investigators she plans to marry the boy someday.

If convicted, Imre could serve more than 20 years in prison.

A trial date has not been set.


Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 3:50:25 PM

Yes, thanks for those fairly odd parent stories...

Although men commit most sexual abuse of children in spite of the odd story here and there that you can dig up...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 27, 2005 4:29:07 PM

The odd story??? lol... they're in the news all the time dear madam! And if they were equally reported as the men's cases, there'd be just as many reports, if not more. Why not accept the facts and then attempt to do something positive about these crimes? Of yeah, sorry New York Mum, you can't accept the truth! Oh well, it takes all types I guess.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 4:37:25 PM

Even if what you said was true, which I don't accept that it is, people who do that to children are rare...it's that simple...so these stories say nothing about most women, as you are trying to imply it does...

Men have historically been responsible for most crimes, both sexually and otherwise...and that's just a fact...

But again this says nothing about most men either as most men do NOT do these things...

Why don't you read Steven Rhoads, author of "Taking Sex Differences Seriously" and you can see where this attempt to smear women is really coming from in you.

One of the most insightful comments he made was that the 'androgynous' project western society has embarked upon today, in another misguided attempt to minimize the real differences between men and women, is basically indicative of 'misogyny' or hatred of women.

Thus, for instance, we see that the root of a lot of the propaganda which has generated our current gender-neutral custody frenzy is a force that is essentially anti-woman.

In fact, any objective person after reading through the research he has compiled in his book, would have to come to the inevitably conclusion that the movements that support fathers rights are not really pro-children, as their propagandists would have us believe, but are more anti-woman then anything else.

So that's you in a nutshell Paul...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 27, 2005 5:00:02 PM

From what you write it very much sounds to me like Steven Rhoads is probably a psychologist. And as anyone with a bit of commonsense knows full well, psychologists become psychologists in an attempt to discover what is wrong with themselves. Don't believe me? Well, I have met many of them in person over the years, and there is one who is a close family friend even, and I have yet to come across a single one of them that could be considered 'normal'.

For every bit of psychology research out there, there is another bit of research that will claim the opposite. And there is very limited research in psychology that one should take seriously; after all, psychology is an art and NOT a science... and you know what the personality of most artists are like (generally good intentioned, but pretty odd).

So, I don't need to read Rhoads' book, I can make my own judgements based on the world as it truly is without relying on some nutter's flawed theories.

Those who attemptt to rely on psychology to support their position are in a very weak position indeed.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 6:01:45 PM

BTW, I am fully aware that criminals are a minority (both genders). And I do not hate women. I hate feminists though (including the male ones) - they are real trouble and do the world no good. Are you one? (Although most of them deny that is what they are, so I don't expect you to admit it if you are.)

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 6:05:52 PM

According to the Third National Incident of Child Abuse and Neglect (1996), men outnumber women as physical and sexual abusers. Women outnumber only in the area of "neglect," which is credited to the high percentage of female caretakers:

"Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female."

Also note that this high number of female "neglecters" is grounded in highly inconsistent defintions of neglect that vary from state to state and community to community. Some communities will define any child under 10 left without adult supervision as neglect, others don't. In addition, "neglect" doesn't always mean that the caretaker's behavior actually resulted in physical damage or impairment. It sometimes means merely that the caretaker was "inattentive." It is frequently tied to poverty and lack of access to adequate housing, food or clothing. Note that federal funding for things like code enforcement, lead paint abatement, and rehabilitation (Section 8, CDBG, etc.) is rapidly disappearing. So apparently it will increasingly be the parents' fault (read: mom is "neglecting") if a child develops lead poisoning in a substandard rental unit, not the landlord's.

See how the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (under the influence of Wade Horn and other conservate ideologues)defines "neglect." Some of it is common sense (abandonment), some of it is kind of scary or vague like "letting" your kids watch your husband or boyfriend beat you up, not taking them to the doctor fast enough or doing exactly what the doctor says(in a country where universal health insurance is not a given), not getting them counseling when "appropriate," disagreeing with "professionals" who insist that your child needs special education services.

This is from HHS's Child Neglect: A Guide for Intervention:

Types of Neglect

The Study of National Incidence and Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect12 sought to overcome the problem of nonuniform definitions of child neglect by utilizing a standard definition of neglect. The definitions of neglect included physical neglect, child abandonment and expulsion, medical neglect, inadequate supervision, emotional neglect and educational neglect by parents, parent substitutes, and other adult caretakers of children. The NIS definitions are categorized as follows:

Physical Neglect
Refusal of Health Care Failure to provide or allow needed care in accord with recommendations of a competent health care professional for a physical injury, illness, medical condition, or impairment.
Delay in Health Care Failure to seek timely and appropriate medical care for a serious health problem which any reasonable layman would have recognized as needing professional medical attention.
Abandonment Desertion of a child without arranging for reasonable care and supervision. This category included cases in which children were not claimed within 2 days, and when children were left by parents/substitutes who gave no (or false) information about their whereabouts.
Expulsion Other blatant refusals of custody, such as permanent or indefinite expulsion of a child from the home without adequate arrangement for care by others, or refusal to accept custody of a returned runaway.
Other Custody Issues Custody-related forms of inattention to the child's needs other than those covered by abandonment or expulsion. For example, repeated shuttling of a child from one household to another due to apparent unwillingness to maintain custody, or chronically and repeatedly leaving a child with others for days/weeks at a time.
Other Physical Neglect Conspicuous inattention to avoidable hazards in the home; inadequate nutrition, clothing, or hygiene; and other forms of reckless disregard of the child's safety and welfare, such as driving with the child while intoxicated, leaving a young child unattended in a motor vehicle, and so forth.

Inadequate Supervision Child left unsupervised or inadequately supervised for extended periods of time or allowed to remain away from home overnight without the parent/substitute knowing (or attempting to determine) the child's whereabouts.

Emotional Neglect
Inadequate Nurturance/
Affection Marked inattention to the child's needs for affection, emotional support, attention, or competence.
Extreme Abuse or Domestic Violence Chronic or extreme spouse abuse or other domestic violence in the child's presence.
Permitted Drug/Alcohol Abuse Encouraging or permitting drug or alcohol use by the child; cases of the child's drug/alcohol use were included here if it appeared that the parent/guardian had been informed of the problem and had not attempted to intervene.
Permitted Other Maladaptive Behavior Encouragement or permitting of other maladaptive behavior (e.g., severe assaultiveness, chronic delinquency) in circumstances in which the parent/ guardian had reason to be aware of the existence and seriousness of the problem but did not attempt to intervene.
Refusal of Psychological Care Refusal to allow needed and available treatment for a child's emotional or behavioral impairment or problem in accord with competent professional recommendation.
Delay in Psychological Care Failure to seek or provide needed treatment for a child's emotional or behavioral impairment or problem which any reasonable layman would have recognized as needing professional psychological attention (e.g., severe depression, suicide attempt).
Other Emotional Neglect Other inattention to the child's developmental/emotional needs not classifiable under any of the above forms of emotional neglect (e.g., markedly overprotective restrictions which foster immaturity or emotional overdependence, chronically applying expectations clearly inappropriate in relation to the child's age or level of development, etc.)

Educational Neglect
Permitted Chronic Truancy Habitual truancy averaging at least 5 days a month was classifiable under this form of maltreatment if the parent/guardian had been informed of the problem and had not attempted to intervene.
Failure to Enroll/Other Truancy Failure to register or enroll a child of mandatory school age, causing the school-aged child to remain at home for nonlegitimate reasons (e.g., to work, to care for siblings, etc.) an average of at least 3 days a month.
Inattention to Special Education Need Refusal to allow or failure to obtain recommended remedial educational services, or neglect in obtaining or following through with treatment for a child's diagnosed learning disorder or other special education need without reasonable cause.

According to the 1988 NIS-2 study,13 almost 43 percent of the identified neglect was physical neglect, which included children living in unsafe housing, not being fed nutritionally adequate meals, being consistently without adequate clothing, and receiving grossly inadequate care for personal hygiene. The second largest category of neglect was inadequate supervision of children (36.6 percent) and failure or delay in providing health care (20.8 percent).

All this is available on the HHS website.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 27, 2005 6:09:58 PM

One more thing...
Of course males and females are different, very different.. and that is a good thing. The genders have to differ, if they didn't the world would be a very strange place indeed.

This reminds me of my wife's sister who was surprised to learn that her grandson has strong attractions to things boys are normally attracted to (cars, etc), despite the boy's mother trying to make him gender neutral kid. I hope she has woken up now, so the boy has some chance of being normal. She lives in a whacked out commune and deprives both her sons of meat though, so they don't have much hope. The boys are age 2 and 5 (and to different fathers, both of which are not around to be a father).

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 6:15:01 PM

Paul, for better or for worse, parents are allowed a fairly wide berth (most of the time) for defining how they want to bring up their children. If that means being vegetarian or kosher or what have you, the parents decide, not the government, even if you or I disagree with what the parents are doing(I'm not too thrilled with a lot of holy roller religions, but I'm not sure I would necessarily support taking these people's kids from them).

You can especially get by with this stuff if you have money. Recently, a friend of mine loaned my Tatum O'Neill's autobiography. Since she grew up with well-to-do Hollywood parents, the fact that she and her brother were eating out of a dumpster because their parents were too stoned to feed them properly was never addressed by the authorities at all. The cops just took them home, and when they saw the nice house, just dropped them off.

Whereas the poor are taken to task for everything they do, even when they don't have the resources to do any different.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 27, 2005 6:27:23 PM

"Those who attemptt to rely on psychology to support their position are in a very weak position indeed."

I don't know if Rhoades is a psychologist, as you say, but his book is all about statistics...so it's very fact based.

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 27, 2005 7:42:06 PM


Yes I pretty much agree with you on all that. I was not suggesting these boys be taken from their mother simply because she does not allow them to be healthy eaters. Like all parents she has her faults, but in her own way she is pretty good on the whole.

As for religion, that is a whole new argument which I could write about for hours. FWIW, I am an atheist. But just because of that, I am not suggesting kids should be removed because the parents are in some or other religion... that is, unless of course it is an extreme suicidal cult like some of those you have in the US and therefore the kids need to be removed because they are at risk

As for Statistics though, I work with a bunch of statisticians so I know stats can easily be manipulated to show either side of any argument. It really is surprising, but true. All the Stats people here say this. Just know your stuff in data-mining, or in Stats s/w packages such as SAS, SPSS or Minitab and you can then use the formula you need to produce the results you want. Speaking of which, please see my next postings...

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 8:34:31 PM

Some selective reporting in that extract silverside at, and it is using 1996 US data.

Here is the whole summary from:

Distribution of Child Abuse and Neglect by Perpetrator Characteristics
Children who had been maltreated as defined by the Harm Standard were categorized according to their relationship to the most closely related perpetrator and according to this perpetrator's sex, age, and employment status; these categorizations were examined in relation to the type of maltreatment and the severity of the child's injury or harm. Perpetrators' relationships to the children also were examined in relation to the children's race. The findings represent only a preliminary exploration of perpetrator characteristics in the NIS-3 data, since they lack significance tests concerning potential relationships and substantial percentages of the children were missing information concerning certain of the perpetrator characteristics.

Perpetrator's Relationship to the Child. The majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).

Birth parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 72 percent of the physically abused children and for 81 percent of the emotionally abused children. The pattern was distinctly different for sexual abuse. Nearly one-half of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other than a parent or parent-substitute, while just over one-fourth were sexually abused by a birth parent, and one-fourth were sexually abused by other than a birth parent or parent- substitute. In addition, a sexually abused child was most likely to sustain a serious injury or impairment when a birth parent was the perpetrator.

Perpetrator's Sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, were more likely to have been maltreated by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).

Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child's relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child. Moreover, the severity of the injury or impairment that the child experienced as a result of maltreatment did not appear to bear any relationship to the sex of the perpetrator.

Perpetrator's Age. The perpetrator's age was entirely unknown for one-third of the children who were countable under the Harm Standard. Given the prevalence of children maltreated by perpetrators of unknown age, the findings here are tentative, since they could easily be eradicated if all perpetrators' ages were known.

Among all maltreated children, only a small percentage (13%) had been maltreated by a perpetrator in the youngest age bracket (under 26 years of age). However, younger perpetrators were slightly more predominant among children who had been sexually abused (where 22% had been sexually abused by a perpetrator under 26 years of age) and among children who had been maltreated in any way by someone who was not their parent or parent-substitute (among whom 40% had been maltreated by a perpetrator in the youngest age bracket).

A child's severity of injury or harm from maltreatment appeared not to be associated with the age of the perpetrator.

Perpetrator's Employment Status. Perpetrator's employment status was unknown for more than one-third of the maltreated children, limiting the value of the findings on this issue. Nearly one-half of all maltreated children were abused by a perpetrator who was employed, and this held true for both abuse and neglect. Of the children who sustained serious injury, the majority were maltreated by an employed perpetrator. In no category were the majority of children maltreated by a perpetrator who was unemployed.

Child's Race and Relationship to the Perpetrator. Because the perpetrator's race was not known for children submitted to the study solely through non-CPS sources, the child's race was examined in connection with the relationship to the perpetrator and with the nature and severity of the maltreatment.

For overall abuse, child's race reflected no notable connection to the relationship with the perpetrator. However, among sexually abused children, white children constituted a greater proportion of children who were sexually abused by their birth parents than of those sexually abused by other parents and parent-substitutes, and by others. Among physically abused children, white children were more prevalent among those who were physically abused by other parents and parent-substitutes than among those who were physically abused by their birth parents or among those physically abused by other types of perpetrators. Although non-white children were the minority of victims in all categories, they were more prevalent among children who were physically or sexually abused by perpetrators other than parents or parent-substitutes.

White children are a larger majority of those who suffered serious injury, whereas non-white children's representation was strongest among those who experienced moderate injury and among those for whom injury could be inferred based on the severity of their maltreatment.


Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 8:38:36 PM

Here is some 2002 US data on physical abuse perpetrators from:

Physical Abuse Only / Percentage
Parent / 10.6
Other Relative / 11.2
Foster Parent / 16.6
Residential Facility Staff / 20.3
Child Day Care Provider / 19.2
Unmarried Partner of Parent / 18.3
Legal Guardian / 13.7
Other / 10.3
Unknown or Missing / 13.7

If there are more male than female perpetrators, this might partly explain it, given the "unmarried partner of parent" category (and note also that married partner of parent could well simply be classified as "parent").

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 8:39:10 PM

Although statistics on family structure are not included the accompanying chapter five text challenges gender feminist propaganda.

The figures represent the sum total of perpetrators of physical and sexual child abuse and child victimization by neglect.

Characteristics of Perpetrators

For 2002, 58.3 percent of the perpetrators were women and 41.7 percent were men.1 Female perpetrators were typically younger than male perpetrators. The median age of perpetrators was 31 years for women and 34 years for men. More than 40 percent (42.5%) of women who were perpetrators were you nger than 30 years of age compared to one-third of the men (32.4%) who were younger than 30 years (figure 5-1 - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/figure5_1.htm)

Australian data

While a number of Australian studies have considered the effects of the family structure on child victimisation most merely refer to structure as part of the family demographic information noting the over-representation in their sample (e.g. Goodard & Hiller 1992).

However, results are not reported which would indicate whether mothers were more prone to child abuse than fathers, or if sole maternal residence––as compared to joint residence, sole paternal residence, or intact family status––contributed to an increased risk for child abuse.

These are simple questions. Yet these fundamental questions are not being addressed.

In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Broadbent & Bentley 1997) to no longer publish information indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reconsidered.

The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women) and the omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space.

Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom of Information request at a cost of $200.

Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of the figures in 1996.

In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented.

Quite obviously, the non-publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources.

If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endeavours.

Murder Suicides Are Biological Fathers More Deadly?

Despite the lopsided amount of publicity these crimes attract when they occur, murder-suicides committed by a biological father are among the rarest forms of child homicide.

Recent Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) statistics show there were 270 child homicide incidents in Australia from July 1989 to June 1999, involving 287 identified offenders and resulting in the deaths of 316 children under 15.

Although fathers are responsible for most cases of filicide these numbers are inflated by the number of non-biological fathers who kill children.

When AIC researcher Jenny Mouzos crunched figures on the distribution of parents who murdered children by gender and biological ties she found biological mothers posed a more lethal risk to their offspring.

Biological mothers accounted for about 35 per cent of all filicides (about the same proportion as stepfathers and de factos) while biological fathers accounted for 29 per cent.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 27, 2005 8:43:48 PM

As for Statistics though, I work with a bunch of statisticians so I know stats can easily be manipulated to show either side of any argument. It really is surprising, but true. All the Stats people here say this. Just know your stuff in data-mining, or in Stats s/w packages such as SAS, SPSS or Minitab and you can then use the formula you need to produce the results you want. Speaking of which, please see my next postings...

But now can we disregard everything you just posted...since you claimed in a previous post that all statistics can be manipulated depending upon what you're trying to prove?

So I'm assuming you just looked through a bunch of stats and picked out a groups that you liked and used them...

As the stats silverside posted were from a very reputable organization as well and said just the opposite of what you just posted. AND I don't think fathers in the US are so every different then the ones in Australia...

So I'm just ignoring yours okay...since by your own words their are just a tool of manipulation...


Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 28, 2005 9:49:01 AM

Actually, I read carefully through all the material that Paul posted, and it doesn't really say anything I didn't say before. Yes, mothers have an edge as perpetrators when abuse AND neglect (a/k/a maltreatment) are lumped together.

This is because the vast majority of abuse/neglect is in fact "neglect", so the overall summary figures will inflate the number of women.

And if you want to talk about statistical games, this is one of them. In fact, I would suggest that HHS artificialy inflates the number of "perpetrator" mothers in a way that really doesn't pan out on closer analysis. Can you really collapse into the same statistics a parent who didn't get the kid to the doctor "soon enough" (usually but not always the mom) with the parent who deliberately molested a child (usually but not always dad or another male caretaker)? That's combining apples and oranges. And when you separate abuse from neglect (apples from oranges), men come out on top for deliberate abuse, especially sexual abuse. However, this is in the finer print, and you have to comb through all the verbage to find it.

I also pointed out that the neglect issue is largely related to the fact women are the vast majority of day to day care providers and the problematic nature of neglect (too often vaguely defined,not necessarily resulting in harm to child, too often a code word for poor, too often wrapped up in "rejecting" the opinions of various authority figures, mothers being blamed for the impact of domestic violence on their chldren, but not the batterer, etc.)

In addition, I have never seen any credible evidence to suggest, as some FR people have argued, that children would be safer or less subject to neglect or abuse in any statistical sense with custodial fathers or in spending more time with fathers (Note that this is in a statistical sense, and does not necessarily predict individual circumstances.) Since men seem to have an edge in physical and sexual abuse, I can't see that they would represent any signficant improvement in terms of poverty related neglect (yes, women earn less, but this is a socioeconomic strain of poverty related to age and lack of education, etc., and chances are the fathers are from the same socioeconomic class as the "perpetrator" mothers). And in my experience, for better or for worse, men are perhaps even more likely than mothers to "question" or ignore various authority figures like doctors. And in fact, at least in the US, men are somewhat less likely to have health insurance as more of them are self-employed and are less likely than women to go into public sector jobs that are largely low paying but with health benefits. So I think you could raise they question as to whether dads would in fact get the kids to the doctor any "faster" than the mother.

Are fathers more likely to make sure a sitter is there before they leave the house? I don't know why they would be. Actually, even Paul's post mentions the sizable minority of men who are guilty of neglect, in the 40% range, which is interesting, because I don't know that anywhere near 40% of all men are primary caregivers. So for the limited time they are with children, they seem to represent a disproportionately large amount of neglect. Especially when Paul and his friends also argue that all these moms are keeping the kids away from dad.

Posted by: silverside at Feb 28, 2005 11:51:54 AM

In his own words:

"As for Statistics though, I work with a bunch of statisticians so I know stats can easily be manipulated to show either side of any argument. It really is surprising, but true. All the Stats people here say this. Just know your stuff in data-mining, or in Stats s/w packages such as SAS, SPSS or Minitab and you can then use the formula you need to produce the results you want."

How do you say quilty as charged in Australian...LOL...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 28, 2005 1:28:18 PM

Actually, I just had this awful vision in my head. Some dads4justice dad is finally getting his kid to the doctor after a couple of weeks of chronic coughing and fever. Bronchitis/borderline pneumonia is diagnosed, and a frowning nurse tells the dad that the child must have the prescribed antibiotic at the prescribed times every day even if the symptoms subside.

"Up yours, you feminazi bitch!" the father shouts (who used to smash guitars in his own punk band.) "Don't tell me what to do. I'll do what I want, not what you say. All you c___ are the same, good for nothing...." (and so forth)

In other words, given how verbally "ferocious" these fellows are here, with court officials, with their ex's, etc., can you even imagine them having an interaction with a medical representative without their egos getting all prickly and everything degenerating into name calling and threats?

Posted by: silverside at Feb 28, 2005 2:07:04 PM

Hey New York Mum,

Well, the Aussies are a bunch of criminals... if you know anything about Aussie history! :-) Lucky for me though, I'm no Aussie (although I am fully aware that Americans are generally not that well educated on things outside of US, so I understand you confusion :-)

So to correct you, I don't live in Australia, I actually live in the best country in the world.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 6:03:29 PM


Um, some evidence of this would be nice. If you want to make up fabrications (just like my first wife), anyone can do that. I could too... but I don't lower myself to that level.

Hey, FWIW, my first wife is a vindictive and very nasty piece of work. That is not just my words but the words of many people who have crossed her path, many women included. I've been with Wife # 2 for many more years now than I was with Wife # 1.

My Wife # 2 is in the opposite extreme as Wife # 1 (yes, a man who DOES learn from his mistakes). My new wife is well educated (she is close to completing her doctorate) and she is compassionate and so on.

Wife # 1 is only educated in the art of manipulation and gossip (all self-taught of course) and in the use of swear words. Apart from that, not much else. She has no formal qualifications and she did not even come out of school with the basic qualification ( "School Certificate" as it was then, but now replaced with a new school qualification that is a farce itself). This current Labour government (the Prime Minister is Helen Clarke) in my county has stuffed up families and is now stuffing up the education system too.

Despite this sad government we have here at present (things will change, eventually), this country is still the best place in the world to live and bring up kids.

How bad is my Wife #1? Well, her second husband is often heard stating that he hates her. He is now in the process of leaving her in fact. He has tried to leave her twice before, but she does not want him to go because of the financial position she will lose (she is lazy, but greedy). They poor man is in for a real battle, and he knows it, but he must be strong and proceed for his own best interest and that of their son (when he gets custody).

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 6:21:38 PM

Well where do you live then and why did you post the data from Australia IF you don't live there?

BTW, I did happen to know Australia was settled by ex-convicts...but didn't know if it was relevant now...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 28, 2005 6:25:51 PM

About statistics...

Yes you can show your ignorance and stubbornness and believe the side that you want to believe in; or you can show intelligence and look at statistics and other research in a more subjective way.

My point was, there are two sides to every argument, and some researchers will produce rubbish on either side, while others will be a bit more ethical and put their own personal prejudices and failings aside and do proper research (which will still never be 100% accurate). It's up to you, but I know it's a bit too hard for NYMOM.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 6:27:34 PM

NYMOM, where am I from? A. The PM is Helen Clarke.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 6:28:56 PM

"So to correct you, I don't live in Australia, I actually live in the best country in the world."

If you live in the best country in the world, then you must live in the U.S. of A.

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 28, 2005 6:29:26 PM

USA!!! lol... You don't get out much do you!

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 6:31:48 PM

My country has produced many famous people, from a physicist who is known for his achievement in being the first to split the atom, another is the inventor of Jet Boat propulsion, and another was heavily involved in NASA putting the first MAN on the moon. The list goes on, of course...

What about the commercialisation of Bungy Jumping?

What about Zespri?

Now can you figure it out? USA... yeah right! lol

No? OK, "Maori" - get it now?

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 6:37:27 PM

What is this 20 questions?

So you're from New Zealand I guess...

What are you ashamed of it or something? Just say it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 28, 2005 6:49:35 PM

Why on earth would I be ashamed to live in the world's' best country?

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 7:08:06 PM

Hey you only asked me which country once, so no not 20 questions, just one.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 7:09:45 PM

That last post of mine wasn't a statistics-driven piece. It was obviously a piece of fiction, a fanciful flight -- inspired by some of the diatribes I have seen here. Trying to imagine how one of these screaming F4J types would function at an ordinary doctor's appointment with a sick kid. You know, the kind of dad who seems to have problems with all authority figures, especially females like a nurse. Since one form of neglect is defined as failure to follow doctor's orders, I can certainly see that this type would have problems with that, as he doesn't like to follow anybody's orders or listen to nobody. "Don't want nobody telling me nuthin'."

In terms of my statistical analysis, other than general accusations of "ignorance" and "stubborness" you didn't respond to any of the specific arguments put forth. Also, I can try to "show intelligence" by looking at things in a more "subjective" way? Is that a freudian slip? I suppose you meant to type "objective."

As to the character of wife #1, I suppose I really can't know "objectively" unless she posts here and gives her story.

Maori, eh? I confess that I can only think of one Maori person, but she's one of the greatest. One of the most gorgeous sopranoes ever: Kiri Te Kanawa. In fact, I just put on the CD for Le Nozze Di Figaro, where Kiri is singing the role of La Contessa di Almaviva (on Deutsche Grammaphon). Pure ecstasy! (In my purely subjective opinion.)

Posted by: silverside at Feb 28, 2005 7:36:56 PM

Why couldn't he SAY he lived in Maori...

What was the big secret?

Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 28, 2005 8:30:44 PM

> "...lived in Maori"? What's that?

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 10:18:47 PM

Making good men out of good boys
by Jo Bailey

If adolescent boys could tell their mothers one thing, what would it be? Chill out and stop asking so many questions, says Celia Lashlie.

She posed the question to large groups of boys for her "Good Man" schools project about what makes a good man in the 21st century.

Boys want their mothers to understand they know she's there, that she cares and that they will talk to her if something big happens in their lives, but they also need some space from her on their journey to manhood.

That's not to say our young men should be left to their own devices. Quite the contrary, says Ms Lashlie.

What they do need is a lot less mollycoddling from mum and significantly more time spent with the good men in their lives.

That discovery is one of many to come from conversations held in the course of the Good Man project - itself the result of an energetic discussion at a Head of Boys Schools Conference in Nelson in 2001.

The outspoken and straight-shooting Ms Lashlie visited the last of the 25 schools in the project in March last year.

A former prison guard in male prisons, she is no stranger to the devastating consequences facing too many young men, for whom prison is a rite of passage, a place where they go to prove they are men.

The validity of being male appears to have been undermined. This is seen in male suicide rates, imprisonment rates and the road toll. The project tried to tap the potential of schools to identify more positive rites of passage, those that celebrate manhood and maleness.

Ms Lashlie hopes her report, It's About Boys, will influence the direction taken by boys' schools in the education of their students.

"While I will continue to work on projects in schools, I think it is men's business to take the findings of the Good Man project forward.

"I don't want to be seen as a woman telling men how to do it. As a woman I have had the privilege to observe and comment on what a man's world looks like."

The impact of the study will reach further than the education system. It will also provide much-needed information for parents as they negotiate adolescence with their sons.

"A theme that emerged very quickly during my visits to the schools was that a great many mothers are over-involved in their sons' lives, while many students said they lack a real relationship with their father.

"We witnessed the importance of mothers withdrawing and fathers becoming more involved at this critical stage in their sons' development."

Easier said than done for many mothers, who struggle as their little boy grows into a young man they don't recognise, and with whom communication may become more difficult.

If a mother asks her adolescent son how his day was, "good" might be as good as she gets.

But good is not good enough for many mothers, who continue to question their sons until they are satisfied with his response.

"There were some sad moments for me in the discussions with students when I realised the degree to which the shutting down of communication appeared to be attributable to the well-meaning questioning of mothers.

"After many conversations with mothers during the study, it seems we convince ourselves that if we keep talking to him, all will be well. It matters not that he doesn't willingly answer us. That just makes us more determined to keep asking the questions."

She says many of the boys do have something to say, but because they lack an adequate emotional word bank, they can't find the words to express themselves.

Ms Lashlie wishes she was armed with the information she has now when her own son entered adolescence.

"The concept of the bridge of adolescence occurred to me a number of times during the raising of my own children.

"I knew I could walk on to the bridge with my daughter, as she was becoming a woman, and I understood her journey, but when it came to my son, I didn't know whether I should be on the bridge at all.

"The mistake I made was to not only walk on to the bridge with my son, but to stand in the middle and direct traffic."

Ms Lashlie says the bridge of adolescence concept provided plenty of interesting discussion between the groups of boys and the parents.

"Some fathers said the mother would be the troll under the bridge, or would walk alongside giving instructions; one boy said if his mother didn't get off the bridge he would push her off.

"A group of mothers said they wouldn't get off, but they would move over to the side.

"The conclusion we reached was that mothers should walk on to the bridge, let go their son's hand, sit on the side and enjoy watching him, occasionally engaging in what is going on if help is needed.

"The challenge for mothers is to willingly usher their sons on to the bridge, knowing that for a time she will only watch his journey from a distance."

Ms Lashlie says mothers must not go on to the bridge first, or elbow the father out of the way to get there. Let them go first, and have discretion. Accept that conversation between father and son doesn't have to be repeated.

The challenge then for fathers is to become much more visible in their relationship with their sons and to know stuff about them - who their best friend is, what their favourite food is, what music they like, what they scored in their last game, what subject they like, what teacher they hate."

But what about mothers whose children have absent fathers? Don't they become responsible for filling both roles in their son's lives?

"As a single mother myself, the sadness I feel now is that I should have been looking sideways instead of lamenting my son's father's absence as he reached adolescence. I had two good men, platonic friends who would have helped if I had asked. But I thought I had to be in control and be superwoman. I thought any involvement would have made me a lesser parent."

Ms Lashlie suggests writing the boy's name down on a piece of paper, then drawing three concentric circles around it, listing in each circle the good men in his life, with those closest to him in the first circle.

Then you will see the emergence of a platform on which the boy can stand.

She says mothers should never interfere in the relationship a boy has with his father, no matter what she thinks of him.

"Regardless of who their dad is, there is a tremendous urge in boys to want to know him, no matter how bad the news is. The mother has to take a deep breath, step back and let them have that relationship.

"If a boy doesn't find out who dad is at age 15, warts and all, he will still be looking at 55, with a string of broken relationships behind him."

Ms Lashlie says it's time we cracked open the politically correct stuff and started to reinforce good male touching.

"I have seen some amazing examples of touch in boys' schools. I saw one principal with a boy in a headlock, rubbing his head, saying 'are we going to tuck our shirt in sometime soon?' The boy was grinning from ear to ear.

"Often the minute there is any suggestion of inappropriate touching, everyone backs off and leaves the teacher exposed. It starts from the base that all men are paedophiles, and that is just not fair. We really need to value our male teachers a lot more."

Schools should also consider accommodating the sheer physicality of boys.

"If you spend a length of time with a group of Year 10 boys you can see the testosterone building in them and their bodies start to move. They're not being naughty - they just can't sit still.

"I often commented during the project that the most effective technique for controlling Year 10 boys, while trying to get at least a few scraps of information into their heads, might be to allow them to stand up every 10 minutes and put someone in a headlock."

Safety and health regulations mean schools now work to eliminate every element of risk and playgrounds have become extraordinarily safe.

"In today's world we wrap our boys up too much. If they are unable to take a risk in healthy male pursuits, such as tree climbing, and rough-and-tumble, they may look for the risk elsewhere - drinking a bottle of bourbon, driving fast, or trying drugs. We need to give them more buzzes that are safe. Their world has become too sanitised."

Much of the debate surrounding boys' education is too academic.

"That is not where the project left me. While the Government has announced the formation of a task force to address the issue, and I await with interest to see what the next steps are, I am more inclined to pin my hopes on some of the wonderful individuals I met during the project who are doing some amazing work because of their desire to help boys reach their potential."

Girls were told in the 1970s and 1980s they could do anything, which is great on the one hand, says Ms Lashlie, but it devalued men to a degree.

"What caught my attention about the world my son was entering was the shutting of doors of possibilities. Women may have cracked the glass ceilings and pushed beyond them, but our sons are now encountering the same glass ceilings, put in place by women."

After talking to many groups of men and women during the course of the project, Ms Lashlie says although women have found their voice, we are not only telling our men what to do but we're also telling them how to do it.

"One of the terrible images I have is of a woman multi-skilling - talking on the phone, a baby on her hip, ironing designer clothing, taking emails on her laptop, with cordon bleu food cooking on the stove. She gives her man one job to do - putting out the rubbish - and she's telling him how to do it."

Ms Lashlie says she met many nice, middle class men who want to get it right, but have given up trying because they are constantly being told they are doing it wrong.

It's the same when parents visit their son's teacher or principal.

"The men say they don't bother contributing as their wife thinks they will get it wrong. When I talked to groups of women they agreed that they wouldn't trust their men to do the talking. That is why men are shutting up - if they are going to be challenged, they won't enter the fight. They will walk away."

Some women are horrified when Ms Lashlie tells them of her observations.

"They put their hands over their faces and say 'I can't believe that's what we do'."

The project has changed her view of the world.

"The joy of men when we let them be men is what the project taught me most. We have to reach for the true essence of men - their pragmatism, sense of humour and way of communicating with each other.

"Their gorgeous, silent communication and three-word sentences. We have to give men time to think, physically and emotionally."

Women need to take responsibility for what they are creating.

"I don't believe we should give up the fight for feminism. I have a huge belief in that. But there are problems we need to, and can, address. There is a hunger for information, particularly from women. That's why I am putting my energies into finishing a book, based on the Good Man project, to help mothers deal with these issues."

She aims to have the book completed shortly. As an independent contractor, she is also working on other projects - one for women coming out of prison, and another getting youth into employment in Nelson.

She has high hopes for the future of our adolescent boys, believing men have an immense capacity to pick up the challenge of guiding them towards manhood.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 10:20:26 PM

Yep, it is true, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa is a Maori... Well, part Maori - there are no full-blooded Maoris left in the world. Besides her singing, she is also a lovely and down-to-earth person as well. I think she grew up in Rotorua (www.rotoruanz.com). Sir Howard Morrison (another NZ Maori singer, but not opera) grew up in Rotorua too.

Hey, I once had a female boss who only lasted as a manager for 1 year. But all her male staff left after only a very short period of time - she went through heaps of guys in 12 months. I had the record, I worked under her for a record 3 months before I too walked out. She used to blame the guys for her failings as a manager, claiming "males just can't cope with a female boss!" At the time I was rather puzzled by that comment from her... after all, I had had one female boss before and she was great to work for - firm, but great. Since then I have had one more female boss and she was great too. I have had male bosses who I have enjoyed working for also, and I have had male bosses who I have despised as well. This woman's problem was not the fact that she was a woman trying to manage male workers - the fault lied with her management style and inability to treat her workers as human beings. She needed to wake up, for her own benefit. I felt sad for her.

Of yeah, before you try to start making suggestions like, "she was probably only a boss or 1 year because her male superiors would've made her life difficult" or something… um, sorry, it was her own business - a Midas Franchise. One of the problems was she thought the American hard-sell style of business could do well in a town in New Zealand - a place where people are still human (but "God's Own Aotearoa" will never be like NY, thank God). But her main problem was she did not know how to treat people as humans.

Also, my GP Doctor happens to be a woman. She is great, the best GP I have had in fact. I've been with her for more years than any other doctor I've had in the past.

silverside ,
As for your made-up dribble, perhaps next time you should point out it is just your inspired fantasy, rather than trying to misled people. But I accept it might've be an honest mistake, so I for one will give you the benefit of the doubt this time. :-)

Finally, of course I meant "objective." Hey, even males can make mistakes! You girls are such fun to chat with. lol...

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 10:56:29 PM

Shock horror! A male makes yet another mistake..

"misled" should be "mislead"! :-)

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 11:02:35 PM


An email list for discussion of Family and Gender-related, issues - particularly pertaining to 1) Separation and Divorce, 2) Access, Custody, Guardianship and Shared Parenting, 3) the Family Court, 4) Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), 5) Child Support Liability, and 6) Self-Representation, and 7) most importantly, the effects on your children, etc.

Posted by: Paul at Feb 28, 2005 11:21:48 PM

What is it that the Maori are some sort of tribal group scattered throughout the Pacific or something? Well what is so secret about that? We have the same situation in the US with a number of tribes existing both here and in Canada for instance...

Why couldn't you just say that?

At this point, I don't even care I'll be honest with you...

As for this Celia Lashlie, I hate to say it, but she sounds totally useless...she buys completely into the bs that MOTHERS are responsible for the sad performance of FATHERS in our society...In fact, it is men's own fault if their children, especially your sons want nothing to do with you...

You became marginal to the family through your own actions or inaction...and are now jealous of the closest of most mothers with their children. Instead of working to become better men and rebuild your relationship with your children that way, you appear determined to try to blame women for it...

Sadly this Lashlie woman appears to enforce this sort of thinking and I wouldn't pay 2 cents for her books, lectures, videos or even let her so much as near my cocker spaniel, never mind my kids...

Women in western society have finally, finally gotten to the point, over the last 30/40 years or so, where they can actually DO something on their own, be self-supporting if they wish, have careers or become professionals, doctors, lawyers, whatever they chose AND now we have a@@holes like this Lashlie trying to undo that and take away the self-confidence of young women who probably were FORCED into being both mother and father to their children because of the irresponsibility of men...

Frankly I think Lashlie and her ilk should be thrown into the nearest lagoon populated with man-eating sharks and left there...

She's a menace to young women in western society, who are the ONLY women in the world who have achieved the status we have...but it won't last very long if we keep listening to the Lashlie's of the world...

If she really wants to do some good, tell her to go over to the great patriarchies of India and China, which aren't too far from where you are, and talk to the men over there about all those girl babies they murdered or aborted, 30 million in China alone...and maybe work on their psyche a little bit before she screws up the one group of women in the world (in western society) who have some freedom and self confidence...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 1, 2005 12:59:28 AM

Just a reminder - please do not post lengthy articles on my blog. Just post a link and an excerpt. I don't want my blog being turned into someone else's personal platform. I'll remove comments if it comes to that. If you want to make at-length points not related to anything I have posted on my blog, please start your own blog. Typepad is cheap. There's a link to Typepad in my sidebar.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2005 12:26:14 PM


heehee, you really crack me up young lass....

BTW, I have no sons, just two lovely and very bright daughters. Mel is 17 and Emma is 8. Unlike you, they also have a good sense of humour, and they both enjoy life.

As for the Maori people on Aotearoa NZ, they are NZ only but linked to other Pacific peoples. Aotearoa is the Maori name for NZ and in English that means "The land of the long white cloud". But you are not interested in being an educated person, that is very obvious, so I will say no more about them (unless asked).

And as for your comments on Celia Lashlie, well that's just what I expected from a man-hating feminazi such as yourself. I bet all the boys at your work hate you, and most women too. And I bet you are proud to be hated so much. And not only is your personality very ugly, I bet your appearance is as well.

Hey Trish,
Sorry, I'll just link to material from now on, as you request. I already have my own busy forum on Yahoo too, so no need to set up my own blog.

Posted by: Paul at Mar 1, 2005 5:29:06 PM