Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

The problem with privilege

Should people in Government organisations be able to censor, threaten , ignore, deny expression in others? Do you think this happens in Beyondblue, and every other organizations - that there are people actively abusing people like this - just because they

I know this is a little lighthearted but I face a problem. Lets tell a story.

The head of the large public service organisation is 'designated' ambassador for white ribbon day. He uses the internal magazine to promote his position and view. Lets say i write a letter to the editor (they publish letters every week) saying I too support non violence and in fact its time all victims of violence are recognized -especially as ABS figures show there are more male victims than female.

Then lets say they don't publish this or any other letter for several weeks and then when questioned they say the letter has been passed to commissioner and then inform the letter writer that it breaches the APS code of conduct (which is a major offence).

Then they threaten, ignore and state they will not publish any letters on this topic by this person.

So what would you do? Would you -
take it all the way to the prime minister, discrimination commissioner?
Should people in Government organisations be able to censor, threaten , ignore, deny expression others? Do yo think this happens in Beyondblue, and every other organizations - that there are people actively abusing people like this - just because they point to public statistics or express a balanced opinion?

Last edit: by Jon Pearson


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon,

I think you should ask other FLWG members to write to this magazine and voice their concerns about the one sided information they share and provide statistics to back up their information.

Maybe if they receive a few letters and act in the same manor they did with you and then receive quite a few letters asking them to state why they won't publish matters on this subject etc they may be forced into replying???
This is the problem with privilege there is always those who have more but want an even greater share and our society is set up to gain privilege.

Then we have class and the dynamics change in this section too, into another metamorphosis that exists in the same beast.

Moving down to the mire where it's inhabitants face many of the social problems are easily influenced and strive to reach privilege and dream of becoming top of social class.

Then we have that which moulds us into good citizens and controls us, it tells us what to think and how best to behave to achieve what we seek.

It's interesting the writer uses the term " traditional femininity " like it has been here since the birth of time and women have always been the nurturers of children all through their growing life.
Nothing could be further from the truth and the claim to the child has existed in human existence for only a short time.

Perhaps society is like a big iceberg that is flowing through time, the basic life of an iceberg is it flows into anything in it's path and if there is a strong enough resistance it stops or goes round but whether it stops or goes round one thing is guaranteed, after some time the bottom will melt sufficiently for the whole thing to topple right over and the top becomes the bottom and the bottom becomes the top. Maybe society is once again reaching topple point and a shift in the balance of power is coming. If it does I have to wonder is a childs existence on average will be a better place and after communicating with many in crisis I think it will be.

I'm not quite sure what the privilege or power of masculinity are, or indeed the joys of femininity but I do know the joys of parenthood which I would have missed out on if I had to work 14 hours a day to support a family in a low paid job or for that matter a high paid job, and why do men do it ??? perhaps they feel an obligation to provide the very best for their families I think it's called sacrifice, so intent is this communal instinct it can mean missing out on many things and lets face it in todays consumer throw away society even kids who's parents are on benefits want a mobile phone and other trimings.

Perhaps too many are believing they are royalty and strive to this at any cost to reach that pedestal only to fall.

As far as why are mens groups criticised probably because they encourage equality and the need for both parents.        
My answer would be that, Mens groups encourage men to fight for thier familes, and they get critisized because it is easy, the media use the groups to play off mothers group who traditionally the "victims" to get a big emotional response.  No one wants to see men as victims, as much as they dont want to see old people as "relevant".

Rarghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Jon Pearson said
I know this is a little lighthearted but I face a problem. Lets tell a story.

Let's say i write a letter to the editor (they publish letters every week) saying I too support non violence and in fact its time all victims of violence are recognized -especially as ABS figures show there are more male victims than female.

Then they threaten, ignore and state they will not publish any letters on this topic by this person.

So what would you do?

just because they point to public statistics or express a balanced opinion?
White Ribbon Day is about violence against women.

The ABS figures show that there are more male victims of male violence in the younger age groups because men are attacking other men, mainly in public places.

The figures also say that many more women than men experience violence in the sanctity of their own homes.

Men, not women, started White Ribbon Day to draw attention to the need to change that.

Threaten by ignoring?

Pulling a single aspect of the statistics out of context and quoting it, also out of context, to prove a point it cannot sustain, about an issue to which it is not relevant, is not balanced.

What would I do?

The the facts!
D4E said
This is the problem with privilege there is always those who have more but want an even greater share and our society is set up to gain privilege.

It's interesting the writer uses the term " traditional femininity " like it has been here since the birth of time and women have always been the nurturers of children all through their growing life.

Nothing could be further from the truth and the claim to the child has existed in human existence for only a short time.
Well informed post!

Men have had a claim on the children for a relatively short time, women for an even shorter time.

When the Seneca Falls Declaration was signed in the mid-eighteenth century, men had the rights to their children, women did not yet.
So here I am (for the sake of the argument lets pretend).

I don't like violence.

I think it's wrong.

I see that there seems to be a one sided or uniformed view and want to balance or argue from both sides.

And then argue on principle and about how wrong it is to focus on the designated 'victim' group but deal with it on the principled basis of honest recognition of the problems.

But instead my boss calls me (lets say) to say he needs to talk to me, the organisation's magazine refuses to talk and they keep bullying me personally and threatening me (lets pretend)

What should I do - is this systematic abuse and censorship - what should happen to the individuals involved?

Did the prime minister order censorship of any alternative views? Did those in power take it upon themselves to interpret the 'wishes' of the government (and how well they aligned with their own views) and bully people like (let's pretend) me using government money in a large government organisation?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
What is nagging? Abuse of the verbal, emotional and psychological kind.

What is the effect of nagging? Men hiding in the garage or carshed with a hobby, at the pub complaining about the nagging, or just hiding.

The cause of nagging; guilt of infidelity or wish of, mental disorder like post natal depression or the like, excuse; PMT.

Extremes of PMT; woman obstructing men, being derogatory of men and woman claiming they do not need men.

That lack of a man in their life, what did we do wrong?

Answer, you are a woman demonstrating self indulgent wants in defiance for what is "In the Best Interest of the Children" rather than yourselves.

What is in the best interests of the child, what the woman wants even if that is to the detriment of the child.

How can you expect what you want published if what I have just said will not be published, the truth.
I have posted may times on this portal about relational aggression - the emotional abuse that is the main type of abuse women use.

The work done in the UK to encourage men to report abuse and the more accurate statistics they have come up with.

I applaud white ribbon day, but not the message that men are abusive. People are abusive, people are violent.

I know women that have done very cruel things to their children. I know women that treat their ex partners appallingly and work very hard at portraying the "perfect mother" image.

Pretending life is a huggies commercial is a very dangerous paradigm.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Artemis said
I know women that have done very cruel things to their children. I know women that treat their ex partners appallingly and work very hard at portraying the "perfect mother" image.

Pretending life is a huggies commercial is a very dangerous paradigm.
Well stated. The worst behaviours seems to come out after separation and often perpetrated by the resident parent against the non resident parent. Bashing each other verbally and violent behaviour is not confined …it is also about witholding contact and all that goes with it. White Ribbon day needs to be a day to reject violence and violent behaviours by all parties.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Artemis, this statement of your "I know women that treat their ex partners appallingly and work very hard at portraying the "perfect mother" image." Also applies to a lot of married and de-facto couples, the public image is so important, what is often said when they break up, "We thought they were the perfect couple". "The woman nagged a bit and the man spent a lot of time on his hobbies or the like but they seemed to be a match made in heaven."

Often we don't see what goes on behind closed doors which are opened by the Court process and separation. That is, what we get to see in the Court and on this site are what was happening to a party by the other party before the separation but not published in any way.

I would stay at work or hide in my office at home to keep the peace; I still see the scares on my throat every time I shave from her attacks on me while we were together. The other assaults are, as the Judge put it, only in my mind because there are no physical scares. Lets just worry about the emotional scares carried by the woman as she is the primary parent. This at a hearing to decide who would be the primary parent.

I am not saying men do not commit assaults on woman but we are talking about the assaults committed by woman that are concealed because to acknowledge those assaults by woman would, as Judges have put it, undermine the woman's ability to parent in the way the woman wants to parent, with total disregard for the welfare of the children.

It is not only the UK that is producing evidence of the misbehaviour of woman that is not in the Best Interests of Children or a Family and until these woman are properly dealt with by the law these princess/spoilt brat type behaviours claimed as PMT will continue to destroy the peace of mind and enjoyment our children so deserve and long for.
If we could lay of the PMT jibes and stick to behaviours, I think this thread would have more credibility.

It goes beyond "princessy" behaviour.

There are people out their who have semi-serious mental illnesses that have not yet been diagnosed and I believe this informs a lot of the behaviour in our court system.

Sometimes it's women, sometimes men. I would like to have this recognised rather than the current men=violent formula at the moment.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

Flood of Father Hatred

LifeInsight said
Perhaps I am making too many assumptions about him. Wouldn't it be good if he came good with his claims to support mens needs by becoming a regular contributor on here? Come on Mike - help us out here?
Please, Noooo … not the father-hater like Flood.

Flood likes/tries to lurk in the few online places men and dads meet so that he can:

1. Seek to collect 'evidence' (examples) of how bad men and fathers are (like No-Justice's PMT comment) for inclusion in his misandrous writings and speeches; and

2. Lecture men and fathers at any and every opportunity about how bad they are and how they need to change and "be accountable to women".

There is no point trying to discuss or reason with him.  He's hard core doctrinaire.  I've know him for 12 years.



As for No-Justice's PMT comment it is both unnecessary and unhelpful to the overall cause of helping separated fathers, and others, obtain justice and fairness.
LifeInsight,
               Flood has ranted and raved at most sites. I think he's very much been put out to rest, demoted to Wollongong from La Trobe, I think. Basically he shot himself pretty well when he published a piece based upon the ABS Personal Safety Survey, however he doctored the results by factoring in a multiple of 10. This was picked up within minutes, he then tried the lame excuse, that he'd failed to apply the percentage, showing yet another lie on his behalf as that would have been a factor of 100 not 10.

He also had to remove much from his website as it showed the true side of Flood, a thing full of hatred for others for nothing other than their gender.

He got into my good books(sic) by being the only researcher I have known to not have the intelligence to be able to register on a website that used the standard registration method.

He's a father with a wife and I believe brought up by a single mother. I'm not sure that his upbringing was any different to others and I do not believe he is a social deviant.

I have heard suggested that his alignment with causes could be reflected to personal gain to the point of believing his own lies but that was on a more vocal forum.

One thing did strike me though LI first hand experience tells me if you are equally beaten by both parents you side with neither gender. it gives you a more even approach  O_o
If I remember rightly comments on the lines of ' congratulations on the birth lets hope you never have to experience what we have been through ' to ' hope you do get to experience what we've been through '

The confusing thing for the child is knowing whether he has two mothers or a very confused father.

Boils down to he is a simple no show concerning childrens rights and over emphasises mothers perhaps a little bit Norman Bates syndrome who knows and lets face it who really cares. ( oops sorry a bit of testosterone slipped out )   
Hey LIS could you pinpoint the article so I can have a read without scrawling the whole site please, I'd be interested to have a look at what was said out of shear curiosity.

The site may have the intention of overall good in concerns with the event but it seems the site is still painting the picture that men have to change because our values are bad, some men do need help as do some women but this is a people issue and I became a bit off put with what i did read, same old same old there have been an amazing amount of hate crimes for varied reasons women haters, men haters, gay haters, colour haters, prostitute haters and a variety of other such animals but they are sick in a bad way and not a fair representation of man kind.

Thanks LIS,

I did read it all the way through but I'm not sure I get what it's about in general but i do see how XY men are different according to the author and the articles seem to do what it claims it doesn't, very long considering it's content and doesn't seem to take the advantage of making it's point, I'm surprised he thought it necessary to use vulgar language even if just once.
Maybe someone else could simplify it but I just got confused  

Ideas

debraesq said
Jon,

I think you should ask other FLWG members to write to this magazine and voice their concerns about the one sided information they share and provide statistics to back up their information.

Maybe if they receive a few letters and act in the same manor they did with you and then receive quite a few letters asking them to state why they won't publish matters on this subject etc they may be forced into replying???
 
This issue is still under discussion. My view is this:
  1. Inclusiveness and balance is a good thing
  2. Specialness and Victim portrayal should be rare (how health is it to have whole groups of people constantly portrayed as victims and others constantly portrayed as perpetrators - see country problems and issues with Germany, Japan, Israel, Serbia - and the list goes on)
3)Repression is not a good model and eventually fails. At some point the repressions and madness will stop - its just a question of how and when.

Thanks for you support - I continue to think - this magazine however - is internal , paid for by government funds and there is a fair degree of legislation which needs to be plowed through to understand rights and so on. Basically, however - Australia is in a particularly repressive mode (see my fat dumb and lazy thread) - doesn't even support basic human rights - and is driven by fear and lack of discussion - political correctness and ignorance.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon….

There is a good reason that the "Office for the Status of Women" is part of the PMC (office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet)…… And there is a good reason that the OSW was loobied to be part of PMC…….. The problem still stems back to the fact that there are 5-6 NATIONAL mens support groups and 35 womens support groups in NSW ALONE.
The modern feminist movement was social programming operation by the US security departments, the Ford Foundation and other globalist organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations that really kicked of in the 1960's.

The CFR is a creation of John D. Rockefeller and is run by his grandson, David Rockefeller.  This is all WELL documented.

Its an amazing story of how these people took everyday fears and tuerned them into a further way to destabalize the family unit

Its not about the everyday femenist on the street, Its about the subtle manipulation of the masses that has been in place for 40 years, training, teaching, brainwashing societies into believing the femenist hype. This costs MONEY, and REAL money… it had to come from somewhere!!

The mind set of "The woman is the victim ALWAYS" has been carefully planted, and it will take a whole shift in collective thought to change.

it really is a fasinating story and i urge everyone to go do some reading, there are some pretty candid admissions on the record of those who fund/funded this movement.

I know it does not change the everyday situation of those who have been falsely accused, and trust me, i speak from experience on this. But, to understand why its happening is, to me, important….

ta

They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets