Are You My Father?
The Family Court and Other Experiments
When prosecution orders came into force in July 1996, the suicides of separated fathers leapt to 4.6 times the national average. There is now a separated father or son suicide every working day of the year due to the Family Court’s gender bias.
Protection orders remove over 6000 fathers from families each year. No evidence is required. Yet those same orders rarely, if ever, remove mothers from families. There is virtually a 100% correlation between fathers with protection orders and those fathers not getting custody. It would appear that Godzone has become a police state for separating fathers.
“Are You My Father?” exposes how Kiwi fathers with protection orders have suffered thirty years of dishonest media terrorism from feminist lobby groups and unnecessary trauma from the Family Court. It examines way gender politics is now a bigger social problem than racism and crime.
From the TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part One: Ideology versus Biology
Dirty Politics: Best Intentions, Worst Results
1. History and Overview of Domestic Violence
2. Original Intentions of the Domestic Violence Act
3. What Ideologies Fathers are Up Against
4. The Influence of War on Culture
5. The Influence of Religion on Culture
6. The Interdependence of Ideologies
7. Witch-hunting, De-fathering and the Right Solution
8. Can an Ideology Change Without Someone Dying?
9. Ideologies Influencing our Culture
10. Eiffel and the Beauty of the Reduced Safety Margin
11. Acceptable Levels of Domestic Violence
12. Ideology Replaces Biology
13. The Influence of Feminism and Charity
14. The Feminisation of Religion
15. Social Engineering
16. The Cold War . . . now Families War
17. Families War . . . now an Intergenerational War
18. Gender Communism; Players and Payers
19. Peaceniks, Communists, Feminists & Social
20. Ideological Goose Steps and the Biological Back Foot
Are You My Father?
The Family Court and Other Experiments
FNZ Fathering New Zealand;
1st edition (2002), now reprinted with new afterword (2015)
The Family Court is probably the most contentious of all government
institutions. It was launched at the same time the women’s movement became
a separatist and élitist clique, known as gender feminism. Imported in the
1970s and early ‘80s, this socio-political force has shaped society more than
any other in the twentieth century.
In its excessive form of “female equity” it has reduced the rights of males, increased penalties against fathers and made the position of fathering insecure in a society that has consequently attempted to emasculate men en masse. To a greater or lesser degree, female equity has succeeded in achieving this.
Twenty years after the launch of “female superiority” in the form of “gender
equity” (the lion’s share for women) males
are finally waking up to the knowledge
that their birthright – fathering – has
been eroded and made insecure in
virtually all cases of separation. In many
cases, fathering one’s children is now
illegal, except under strict supervision. In
New Zealand, this is called a Protection
Order. In Australia, Canada, England
and America, similar Orders exist under
different names, but the state-funded,
state-backed de-fathering programmes
are invariably referred to as the “silent
holocaust” by their male targets.
Most Western countries now have policies in place which make “post-divorce fathering” the most difficult thing for a father and child to achieve. By intention or design, family law now financially encourages mothers to de-father children.
In New Zealand, at separation, mothers going onto the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) are paid to report that there was domestic violence. Such funding warps statistics. We have to ask ourselves which came first, the violence or the reporting of the violence in order to gain custody?
History shows that false statistics such as “1 in 4 females will be sexually assaulted
before they reach 18”, were perpetrated by the gender feminist movement in the
infamous New Zealand telethons of the 1980s. New Zealanders love to support
victims and they gave millions. Thus the victim industry was funded and born – on
Overseas figures were derived by feminists interviewing females only, in impoverished industrial areas where aggressive physical interaction from both sexes was the norm. The boundaries of violence and sexual nappropriateness were also lowered, so that chivalrous activity such as a hand in the lower back when exiting a doorway was defined as ‘sexual assault’, as were wolf-whistles.
The gender feminist or “female separatist movement” began on such unchallenged
premises. But they had a long-term plan, and new “information” was strategically
and continuously presented. Family Court judges were taken on weekend camps with Women’s Refuge and were shown photos of women purportedly battered by
men. However it was not revealed to these Family Court judges that these most
pronounced photos of violence were not males beating up their female partners, but females who had beaten each other up, women against women, for sadomasochistic
pleasure! They were then paid by the “women as victims” groups to have their
photographs taken.1 These photos were then shown to the judges, who assumed
and were told that this was male violence against females.
So, the gender feminist movement under the guise of female equality was
founded on false evidence and false statistics – but it pulled the heartstrings
of the charitable public, and it pulled the legal strings to penalise fathers – not
necessarily their behaviour – but more their ability to access their children, who
were, for historical and religious reasons, always linked to the mother.
Currently, no evidence is required to separate a father from the mother and
child, only the mother’s sworn accusation, which does not require any solid evidence to back it up. Even when no evidence is produced, the protection
order usually becomes permanent. If unchallenged within five days (including
weekends), compulsory psychological assessment and training is required for
the father. If unchallenged within three months, the protection order becomes
permanent. Any mother’s testimony results in a protection order and the father is
made snap-childless (instantly removed from parenting).
Domestic violence has become an accusation industry for
other gains – principally the custody of children.