Thursday, March 29, 2012

Female columnists criticizing the violence against woman act

Husband abuse: Can a wife abuse her husband?
http://www.newsday.co.zw/article/2012-03-23-husband-abuse-can-a-wife-her/

When we think of abuse or domestic violence, we don’t often hear or think about the husband being the victim. It’s usually the wife who is the reported sufferer.
Yet more and more it’s coming out into the light many husbands are victims of spousal abuse as well. Not as many as women, true, but it still happens.

So why don’t we hear about husbands being abused by their wives? David L Fontes, Psy D, in the article titled, Men Don’t Tell gives insight into several reasons.

He writes: “When a man is a victim of his wife’s physical abuse he is both shamed by the assaults of his wife and shamed by society for not ‘controlling’ her better. Today, men are not made to ride backward on donkeys, but they are still considered ‘wimps’ for letting their wives beat them or for complaining about their wives’ attacks. For many men ‘Taking it like a man’ means don’t complain and don’t show you are vulnerable or in pain!

“With the prospect of being viewed as ‘wimps’ and/or having the assaults by their wives not believed or minimised by the general public and law enforcement, it’s no wonder few men report their abuse or discuss it openly.”

It’s difficult for men to report their abuse and find help — especially in the Christian community. Marriage Missions claims to have received a number of letters from husbands dealing with their wives abusive and sometimes very violent behaviour.

They write that they wanted to be honourable men and would not hit or abuse back, but they did not know what to do to stop their wives from hurting them in these ways.

Does that mean that it’s less important to minister to the hurting husband as it is to the hurting wife, even though the numbers are less?

Should a husband just accept and silently suffer from abusive behaviour, if it is directed at him from his wife? No. Abuse is still wrong no matter who is the one who is victimising the other.

Maxine Marz wrote an article titled, Husband Abuse Erodes Dignity (Metronews.ca, August 31 2004), and she had the following to say on this subject:

“While it is true that most physical assaults caused by women tend to be less severe when compared to a man’s physical assault on a woman with his fist or a weapon, the abusive woman’s slaps, bites, kicks and/or pulling of her partner’s hair are nevertheless still very hurtful because, in addition to subjecting physical pain, they attack the man’s dignity and erode his sense of self-worth. Many men also encounter emotional abuse when their abusive spouse turns to using their children to assert her control over them and their relationship.

“To add insult to injury, some abusive women not only victimise their spouses by abusing them verbally, emotionally, financially and/or physically, but they also attempt to manipulate the criminal justice system in their favour and against their partner. This unconscionable attempt of some abusive women not only revictimises their already abused husbands by denying them equal rights and fair protection under the law, but it simultaneously devalues and undermines the admirable progress women’s groups have achieved over the years in trying to protect the rights of legitimately abused wives and their children in the criminal courts.

“It is evident our society has made positive strides over the years to bring needed attention to domestic abuse and to better protect women from their abusive husbands or partners.

Unfortunately, based on what many abused husbands currently experience, we still have a long way to go to afford them with similar protection of their safety and security and to eliminate the current gender bias in our system that revictimises them all over again when they step into the legal arena.”

—marriagemissions.com/husband-abuse-can-a-wife-abuse-her-husband

Feedback:kmudzingwa@newsday.co.zw

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Afghan women jailed for moral crimes.

I read this disturbing story on yahoo and immediately thought how lucky kiwi women are.Then smack bang, in comes a thought about our appalling child abuse / domestic violence record. But dumbo kiwi enjoy sick films like, Once were the warriors ( Jake the Muss tough bro) yeah right !! Make no sense to me? And the silly fools have the cheek to saturate us with a white ribbon campaign, which is, just another politically correct liberal feminist wankfest. Western women have never had it so good, they only have to ring the feminist ideological keystone cops and a man is a labelled for life a kid fucker,deadbeat dad and violent head case after just one phone call. Then when the blown away dad rots in a padded cell the bitch invites the new boyfriend into his once prized home. He does not see his confused children for years and his mother dies after being hounded to death by a corrupt gravy train Kangaroo Court. Thank you Christchurch femily court.Revenge is mine say the LORD.

I just wish man and woMEN could stop the bullshit and get along for the SAKE OF THE CHILDREN.

Just imagine a earth that didn't have gender hangups? Could we call that a balanced earth? The blood money the Western World spends on family court lawyers and wacko psychologists in a year could solve the global crisis and make the world a child friendly environment. Dreams are free. No doubt the new world order has worked out a way how to tax them.

Bring back Jesus.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/13289348/afghan-women-jailed-for-moral-crimes-hrw/

Monday, March 26, 2012

Its Legalised Child Abuse


Unfortunately I have dealt with many cases where decent parents have been shafted by CYF. In most cases the lack of compassion from CYF has been heart wrenching to say the least. With a qualified opinion I can state that CYF are that dysfunctional they are a danger to all New Zealand children. Twisted and bent psychologists  like Dr John Watson created a monster that is well equipped to destroy decent parents and vulnerable children. How long will this sick system keep in the fractured family industry? Poor kids, I have many,many,many, sad cases far worse than reported by the Southland Times below.
God please help our children.


Southland Times 24 March 2012
OPINION: Shirley and Ron Birt have fostered children in Southland since the 1960s. These are their concerns about children in CYF care. We are very long-term foster parents and are concerned for children in CYF care. It seems CYF often leaves children in dangerous circumstances and equally as often removes children who should never be removed from their natural families. They seem to have lost the ability to reach a sensible middle-of-the-road approach and the training to assess correctly the needs of these children. We have seen over many years the suffering of young people in care, the feelings of rejection and self-blame. Not all of them can be returned to family but the new Home for Life care policy that was implemented about two years ago is causing grief for children, their families and eventually the Home for Life carers, because of the inability of ever returning any of the children home.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/6626420/Its-legalised-child-abuse

Friday, March 16, 2012

Barbara Kay: Adoption abuses have only been half cured



<<Former (Liberal) Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said in 2003, “Men have no rights, only responsibilities.” That is the ruling paradigm in our society>>
<<.” For nobody nowadays would ever dream of tearing a baby away from its biological mother and handing it over to an adoptive family. Unfortunately, time has stood still for biological dads.>>
<<Recall what Raymond Cave said about his youthful experience: “No one was ever supposed to know who the father was, let alone come ask me for a signature. It was like I didn’t exist.”



Barbara Kay: Adoption abuses have only been half cured
Thursday, March 15, 2012
I am old enough to remember when an “unwed” pregnancy was a social scandal of matchless proportions. I vividly recall a girl at my Toronto high school – Florence– who abruptly left school one day, never to return. The rumour that she had “got herself pregnant” flew through the corridors like wildfire. I received the news with horrified embarrassment on her behalf.
I never did find out what happened to Florence. She dropped off the face of the earth. I assumed that her life was ruined by the shame of it all, and it well may have been. I hadn’t thought of Florence in decades, but she sprang to mind as I began following the Post’s current feature series on systemic adoption abuses in the 1950s and 1960s. I’m fascinated and indignant as I read the distressing narratives that illustrate the scope of the heartbreak in that era.
We have learned about many other young Florences – girls not necessarily “fast,” as we used to call girls who were sexually active, just unlucky – being hustled into months of purdah lest respectable people see evidence of their moral turpitude in the flesh. In all cases they were urged, and in some cases coerced, into giving their babies up for adoption, often sight unseen, without being informed of their legal right to refuse.
In the March 14 segment, the series highlighted the iniquities of the system that were visited on the fathers of those babies. Several fathers recount their experience of being shunted aside, with no role or legal standing in the process. One father saw his baby only once before signing a “surrender document.” Another was told that there was no point in putting his name on the birth certificate since it would only be “whited out.” According to Raymond Cave, whose high school sweetheart Linda Dawe became pregnant at age 17 in 1966, when the couple was too young to legally marry, “No one was ever supposed to know who the father was, let alone come ask me for a signature. It was like I didn’t exist.”
It’s hard to believe that only 40-plus years ago, biological mothers and fathers could be so cruelly denied their rights to their own flesh and blood. It’s good to know that such insensitivity and indifference to natural human rights are now relics of the past, and that our society has opened its eyes to the sanctity of the biological- parent connection to children.
Actually, to make a point, I have deliberately led the reader astray in the above paragraph. What I should have said was that “our society has opened its eyes to the sanctity of the biological-mother connection to children.” For nobody nowadays would ever dream of tearing a baby away from its biological mother and handing it over to an adoptive family. Unfortunately, time has stood still for biological dads.
Take the 2007 case of Rick Frederickson, also known as “Saskatoon Dad.” Rick was involved in a brief relationship with a woman, who became pregnant with his child, but didn’t inform him of it. By chance he learned of the impending birth and presented himself as the father.
The mother refused to identify him on the birth certificate. After strenuous efforts on Rick’s part, DNA tests proved his paternity. But by then the mother had adopted the baby out to strangers with the collaboration of social services who stonewalled Rick every step of the way.
Like many resident fathers, and mothers for that matter, Rick had had alcohol issues and a chequered employment history. But at the time of his suit for custody of his baby, he was sober, holding down a good job and settled into a thriving, stable relationship. He had a permanent home, his partner was eager to parent the child with him, and he was desperate not to lose his last opportunity to bring up a child. But no. In his “best interests of the child” decision, the judge ignored biological paternity as a compelling argument for custody and awarded the baby to the materially more advantaged strangers.
Former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said in 2003, “Men have no rights, only responsibilities.” That is the ruling paradigm in our society. Recall what Raymond Cave said about his youthful experience: “No one was ever supposed to know who the father was, let alone come ask me for a signature. It was like I didn’t exist.” If you didn’t know, would you guess those words applied to 1966 or 2012? You’d be right either way.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

DV Myths help no one.



The big lie against men just keeps stacking lie on lie. A fellow father rights activist sums the situation up in a far better way than I can by saying;

"This article points out how gullible politicians are, among others, in their efforts to appear to be chivalrous. They will buy propaganda as truth,resell it on their web sites and denigrate men, In the overall statistics DV
Injuries of all women are not in the top 10."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-sommers04_st_N.htm

USA Today: Domestic Violence Myths help no one: Christina Hoff Sommers

By Christina Hoff Sommers

Friday, February 4, 2011

"The facts are clear," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Intimate partner
homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to
45."

That's a horrifying statistic, and it would be a shocking reflection of the
state of the black family, and American society generally, if it were true.
But it isn't true.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice
Department's own Bureau of Justice Statistics, the leading causes of death
for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease,
unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Homicide
comes in fifth—and includes murders by strangers. In 2006 (the latest year
for which full statistics are available), several hundred African-American
women died from intimate partner homicide—each one a tragedy and an outrage,
but far fewer than the approximately 6,800 women who died of the other
leading causes.

Yet Holder's patently false assertion has remained on the Justice Department
website for more than a year.

How is that possible? It is possible because false claims about male
domestic violence are ubiquitous and immune to refutation. During the era of
the infamous Super Bowl Hoax, it was widely believed that on Super Bowl
Sundays, violence against women increases 40%. Journalists began to refer to
the game as the "abuse bowl" and quoted experts who explained how male
viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could "explode like
mad linemen." During the 1993 Super Bowl, NBC ran a public service
announcement warning men they would go to jail for attacking their wives.

In this roiling sea of media credulity, one lone journalist, Washington Post
reporter Ken Ringle, checked the facts. As it turned out, there was no
source: An activist had misunderstood something she read, jumped to her
sensational conclusion, announced it at a news conference and an urban myth
was born. Despite occasional efforts to prove the story true, no one has
ever managed to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery.

World Cup abuse?

Yet the story has proved too politically convenient to kill off altogether.
Last summer, it came back to life on a different continent and with a new
accent. During the 2010 World Cup, British newspapers carried stories with
headlines such as "Women's World Cup Abuse Nightmare" and informed women
that the games could uncover "for the first time, a darker side to their
partner." Fortunately, a BBC program called Law in Action took the unusual
route pioneered by Ringle: The news people actually checked the facts. Their
conclusion: a stunt based on cherry-picked figures.

But when the BBC journalists presented the deputy chief constable, Carmel
Napier, from the town of Gwent with evidence that the World Cup abuse
campaign was based on twisted statistics, she replied: "If it has saved
lives, then it is worth it."

It is not worth it. Misinformation leads to misdirected policies that fail
to target the true causes of violence. Worse, those who promulgate false
statistics about domestic violence, however well-meaning, promote prejudice.
Most of the exaggerated claims implicate the average male in a social
atrocity. Why do that? Anti-male misandry, like anti-female misogyny, is
unjust and dangerous. Recall what happened at Duke University a few years
ago when many seemingly fair-minded students and faculty stood by and said
nothing while three innocent young men on the Duke Lacrosse team were
subjected to the horrors of a modern-day witch hunt.

And then there's Iran

Worst of all, misinformation about violence against women suggests a false
moral equivalence between societies where women are protected by law and
those where they are not. American and British societies are not perfect,
but we have long ago decided that violence against women is barbaric. By
contrast, the Islamic Republic of Iran— where it is legal to bury an
adulterous woman up to her neck and stone her—was last year granted a seat
on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defended the decision by noting Iranian women are far
better off than women in the West. "What is left of women's dignity in the
West?" he asked. He then came up with a statistic to drive home his point:
"In Europe almost 70% of housewives are beaten by their husbands."

That was a self-serving lie. Western women, with few exceptions, are safe
and free. Iranian women are neither. Officials like Attorney General Holder,
the deputy constable of Gwent, and the activists and journalists who
promoted the Super Bowl and World Cup hoaxes, unwittingly contribute to such
twisted deceptions.

Victims of intimate violence are best served by the truth. Eric Holder
should correct his department's website immediately.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys,
co-author of One Nation Under Therapy, and editor of The Science on Women
and Science.





Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Unqualified experts advise family courts in UK

Parasitic filth employed by the christchurch family court fucked me over for 10 years. Thanks judge strettell you low life animal skunk.

So much drama was based on false allegations made by the vindictive maternal family.Pathalogical liars in the family court killed my mum. Watch yourself John Watson - Christchurch family court psycho bullshit artist. Revenge is MINE said the Lord.
Rant over.


Scandal of 'unqualified' experts who advise our family courts: Decisions about the care of thousands of children routinely flawed
More than a fifth of these vital reports are being produced by people who are completely unqualified, a damning study reveals.
Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114173/Child-care-scandal-The-unqualified-experts-advise-family-courts.html

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Mother guilty of false DNA bid


Once again this crime clearly shows the low levels of depravity a vengeful and vindictive women can go.No doubt the gender bias courts will give her a soft sentence after a pretty lawyer woffles a a load of horseshit to a female sympathetic court system.I think this low trick is in the feminists dirty handbook of hate. I hope this fraudster gets five years prison. Yeah right ,how about five minutes community service. The courts don't care about fathers and children.They only care about the money. Rot in hell you corrupt filth. Your day is coming!




http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10791255

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Evil kiwi bitch

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/6555640/Evil-Kiwi-sold-white-designer-children

This heartless bitch needs a bullet. If this were a man trading in babies, then this would be more ammunition for the radical feminists to try and blow away fatherhood and men in general. See you hateful, gender bias, warped fembots, members of your own sex are guilty of horrendous crimes of filth.
What a disgusting crime. What a vile person this pig is. There is no excuse for her behaviour.
It's really sad when you think that these children will grow old and they will struggle with identity issues in the future.
Do the world a big favour you sick fat cow and top yourself . Go join Satan in hell. oops sorry Satan you are already here eh scum. Don't answer me freak, nice crime matey.


Friday, March 9, 2012

Caught Between Parents


Domestic Violence by Proxy: Getting It Right and Getting It Wrong

A comment on Silberg's (2009) attempt to explain away parental alienation.
In 2009 Joyanna Silberg of the Leadership Council attempted to both acknowledge and discredit parental alienation. She is mostly wrong and a little bit right. The part she gets right is that some parents can and do wage a campaign of manipulation and abuse against their former spouse by attempting to convince the children that the other parent does not love them. So far so good. She recognizes the possibility that some children can be manipulated to reject a parent who does not deserve the loss of their child's love. This is the essence of parental alienation and what I, among many others, have been writing about for quite some time—with much resistance I might add on the part of the Leadership Council.

Here is what she gets wrong:

First, she claims that this is only something that fathers do against mothers as part of an overall program of domestic violence. In making this claim, she denies the possibility that mothers can engage in this kind of behavior and she refuses to accept that it can occur in the absence of other forms of domestic violence. There is not a shred of evidence that alienation only occurs by fathers and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Frankly, I am shocked and dismayed at the gender bias and utter insensitivity to the many fathers who have lost custody of their children due to parental alienation. Not only that but this position—that it only happens to mothers—denies the pain of women by dismissing the experience of step-mothers, grand-mothers, aunts, and daughters, all of whom suffer when a mother turns a child against the father. This is an ideologically based decision that has no place in a scientific discussion.

Second, she claims that calling this behavior "parental alienation" is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers. This appears to be an aesthetic argument as opposed to a scientific one. I can only ask, "strong enough for what purposes?"

Third, she claims that, "Unlike battering fathers, PAS inducing parents, according to Gardner, are often unconscious of what they are doing." This is a misstatement as well as over-simplification of reality and of what Gardner wrote about. Gardner wrote about many possible motivational factors that could result in a parent engaging in alienation tactics but as far as I know he never claimed that all alienators were aware of their motives and the likely result of their behavior. Certainly, more recent parental alienation writers have acknowledged the multi-factorial nature of parental alienation and no one claims to know what is in the hearts and minds of all alienators.

Fourth, she writes, "The most dangerous aspect of Gardner's PAS theory is that that the alienating parent's behavior is theorized to be so subtle as to be unobservable." This is both untrue and misleading. No one in the field has made such a blatantly simplistic statement that it impossible to observe any parental alienation behaviors.

Fifth, she dismisses PAS as "overly general" and "not supported by careful research." While hundreds of articles now exist in dozens of countries documenting and describing parental alienation, there appear to be no published articles on the topic of domestic violence by proxy by the person who created the term, Alina Patterson, or anyone else. The scientific evidence to support the existence of PAS is mounting. In fact, July of last year I passed a Daubert hearing in the state of Massachusetts in which the science underlying PAS theory was thoroughly challenged by the courts, which ultimately decided that to accept the theory as scientifically sound. I call on the Leadership Council to cease its campaign of denigration against PAS and accept—as the courts have—that this is a real problem that affects parents—both mothers and fathers. To do anything less is to do great harm to children and families.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Facebook administrators are heartless scum

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/13093809/mum-blocked-from-dead-daughters-facebook-page/




A grieving mother has talked about her anguish after Facebook prevented her from logging into her dead daughter's page in order to protect her privacy.
British mother Louise Palmer said after her 19-year-old daughter Becky died from a brain tumour she was devastated.
Ms Palmer said during her lowest points she found comfort in logging into her daughter's Facebook page and reading old messages.
But four weeks ago, Ms Palmer noticed the login details had been changed so she could no longer access the page, according to the Daily Mail.
When she questioned Facebook they said she could no longer login because it may be an invasion of Becky's privacy.
Ms Palmer, 47, called Facebook administrators "heartless" and said her daughter shared everything with her.
"I can't believe Facebook can be so heartless and inconsiderate. The loss of my only child has been heartbreaking.
But at least in my darkest hours I could login to her Facebook account and read her messages remembering her as the vibrant girl she used to be," she told the Daily Mail.
"Becky had no privacy from me - we shared absolutely everything.
"Towards the end of her life she couldn't write or read more than a few sentences so I used to log in for her and read out to her what her friends were up to.
"But also I fail to see how anyone can invade the privacy of a dead person."
Ms Palmer, a nurse from West Midlands, said she began logging into her daughter's account after Becky fell ill with a seizure on New Year's Day in 2010.
After her daughter's death, Ms Palmer continued to log in and remove spam comments from the page.
According to Facebook guidelines, when a user passes away it is their policy to "memorialise" their account to protect their privacy.
Memorialising an account automatically gives privacy settings which means only confirmed friends can see the profile or locate it in a search.
Although family and friends can still leave posts, memorialising an account prevents anyone from logging in.
Facebook requests that family and friends report the death of a user to them. The verified next of kin can then submit a special request to have the deceased person's account deleted but will need to present documentation such as a death certificate.
When Ms Palmer first found out she could no longer log into her daughter's account she thought it was a mistake.
"I felt there must be some mistake as a request for something such as this could only come from the next of kin and I hadn't asked for it," she said.
But when she contacted Facebook they replied in an email stating "unfortunately for privacy reasons, we cannot make changes to the profile or provide login information for the account".
"I was angry and devastated as although people can post on the Wall, I can't read any of her old conversations nor remove any spam. It means her page looks like an uncared for grave with weeds growing on it," she said.
"People who did not have a Facebook account or who weren't friends on Facebook can now no longer even see the page even though they might want to leave a message of condolence on the Wall."
A Facebook group has now been set up with 1500 protesters asking for the page to be reinstated as it was.
"We just want Facebook to show some compassion," Ms Palmer said

Monday, March 5, 2012

Young children expelled for drug dealing.


It's no wonder over a 100 people a day are leaving this cess-pit nation for Australia.Our false political leaders are egomaniac selfish creeps who couldn't give a hoot about the terrible plight of our vulnerable children, We look set to stay world champs at child abuse. Maori elders and the authorities are far too busy rorting the system to care about kiwi kids. Every-time I see John Key in the presence of the criminal Helen Clark I think why doesn't the public have a right to know what sordid secrets these two immoral creeps hide. Politicians in this country make my skin crawl because they are nothing more than lying socialist scavengers. In our school play grounds the drugs run and kiwi society says she'll be right mate. Get on a plane mate. This country is stuffed.





http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/younger-children-suspended-drugs-and-alcohol-4755865



A seven-year-old boy and an eight-year-old girl were among thousands of children expelled or suspended for bringing drugs and alcohol to school last year.

Secondary Principals Association president Patrick Walsh says offenders are getting younger and tougher penalties for parents are needed.

Last year 241 students were expelled for drug offences, and 2174 suspended – 298 of them 12 and under. In a 2010 case, a 12-year-old took a kilogram of cannabis to school to sell, reportedly for a family member.

“Nearly always they come from dysfunctional homes where substance abuse is rife,” Walsh said. “We take a light-handed approach but those parents need to be accountable.”

He was concerned at a trend towards younger students using drugs and violence, or sexually assaulting others. Schools could try to modify behaviour but much of that work was undone in the home.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Real blokes don't cry eh Ms Plod


TVNZ (2012):
Male domestic violence victims 'have nowhere to go'
Tuesday February 28, 2012
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/male-domestic-violence-victims-have-nowhere-go-4745516 
It's real sad when the feminist controlled police laugh at a man who claims his 
female partner has bashed him real bad.No wonder our gender bias law journals don't-have female assaults male charge written into the criminal justice act? How come 
our society does not acknowledge female violence? Simple -they don't care.
Real blokes don't cry eh Ms Plod!