1. Description - 2. Excerpt - 3. Video - 4. Radiointerviews


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 false statistics.

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. 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.

More infos:




1. The Book - 2. Excerpts - 3. Video - 4. Radiointerviews