The Unruliness of Single Women

You would think in this day and age that attitudes would have changed towards the single woman but they're as archaic as ever. In fact, I think it's getting worse. Strong minded woman are often referred to as butch lesbians who just need Mr Right to come along and convert them - as if that's all it would take. A single woman at a bar is on the hunt and if you throw single parenting into the mix, you're not only on the hunt but completely and utterly irresponsible in your parenting duties as well. I see many men sitting at bars. Not once do I assume their on the hunt - they might be but it just never enters my head. I still reckon a lot of those men are fathers as well. So why aren't they sluts and drop dead dads? 

Why can't a woman have a male friend? Or more to the point, only have a so-called genuine male friend when there is a more permanent male in her private life? Why does that even have to be legitimized? 

And it's not just men who think this, it's women. A single chick at a dinner party has the power to disrupt the equilibrium of boring vanilla talk. It's like she's become part of the menu, something to devour because, God forbid, her sexuality is not governed by the permanency of a male figure on her arm.  In other words, a woman is only "safe" when there is a man guarding against the leakage of her sexual prowess - oh, what, you don't think women have that? They do and it scares the crap out of people!

I only ever get to feel this claustrophobic when I sense the subtle innuendos leaking into every day life. God forbid, I am a single woman and with that, comes an innate ability to  sniff out the stench of gossip-mongers - those weird outburst from people who are usually sensible; dribbling shit that means nothing but comes with a stab in your back feeling; the looks of condemnation (at what, I ask?); and the utter cowardliness of those who do not possess the balls to confront me with their thoughts. Passive aggressive. Yes, I think that's what it's called. Still, a coward though. 

And I say this...

Tough shit. I am the owner of my being. I possess it. No one else. It cannot be bought, bartered, badgered or bribed. You don't like what you 'think' I'm doing, have the balls to confront me about it. Or is the real truth, you can't confront me cause it would only tell me what 'sort' of person you really are?

Ruh Roo

Thank God I don't need to have a book to refer to... no, I have something much more tangible, more "in your face", and that is guilt and shame...

I went out last Thursday..nothing untoward. Just a few drinks with some work mates - how hard can that be, right? I went there at 6:30ish and left around 10pm. A respectable time, I thought... but here's the thing. I didn't think.

Once upon a time, you know, when one got to that "time to go home" stage of drinking, one was warned with a sense of wooozy-ness or that infamous slur when you're trying to impress someone and your tongue grows 8 meters... maybe you have smashed a few glasses, eyed up the wrong person, picked a fight.. who knows?  The thing is, now... I have no warning signs... I am drinking, having a laugh, and then ... nothing. 

Has anyone every had the God awful moment when you wake up in the morning and have to make sense of the night before? I'd say that was a drinking problem (oh don't worry ACC, I've already written you off so you can stop scouring my blog for hints of compensation deduction).... back to the real people... 

I have and it's the most scariest thing in the world. 

They say, whoever the fuck "they" are but... if drink starts screwing up your life then it is a problem... sounds ever so logical but, the thing is, it isn't screwing up my life.... on the outside. You know, that "bit" everyone else gets to see and judge.... but it is screwing me up on the inside. 

They say (You got it, whoever the fuck "they are") you can't change what you don't acknowledge, so I guess this is a mini break through for me... what a crock of shit. I have had warning signs before. I chose to ignore them. And now? Now is different... now is scary. Now is now....

For grief's sake...

Sometimes I wonder whether I'm happy being miserable. 

I know how that sounds, and please don't get me wrong, I already know ACC have proportioned off any potential further claim by at least 150% by that statement alone.. bless their fucking rotten socks ... 

So let me do this.... be honest...

I want my blog to get back to anything other than blowing farts up ACC's ass.... I want this blog to be about me... like it was initially intended - prior to those 40k hits back in April and a deformation case. If that means I loose all readers.. then okay... I will put that down to you've all found another escape avenue. If it doesn't work out for you, let me know... apparently, one can blog, get sued, and ... lol

Actually.. I am being facetious ... but in all honestly, it 's hard to think.. how do I crawl back to my non existent living now without letting shit lots of people down. What, you didn't think I was dreaming of those riots out of the Court, Jansen looking like a skinned pork? I did! And he knew it would end up like that... hence- dropped case.

I'm leaning back into the "knowing"........nothing, despite you're fighting, get's you anywhere....maybe it's time to start choosing one's battles as opposed to putting the same fucking ladder against the same wall and expecting something different?

Breaking the Silence

Five years after the murder of baby Kahui twins no one has so much as had a smack on the hand let alone been sent to jail. The father, Chris Kahui, had been arrested, tried, and released without charge. So, it wasn't him, right? 

As the general public, not privy to details of the case or the methods of interrogation the Police may or may not have used, we're left with the process of elimination to justify our disgust at this crime and all fingers are now pointing at the mother - she must have done it and now, after all that's been said and done, here she is writing about it, profiteering from her own babies' death. 

Well that was the 1+1=5 conclusion I came up with when the news of this book hit the headlines and groups started appearing all over Facebook requesting/demanding shops refuse to stock it - groups such as Re-open-the-Kahui-Case and Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book . 

The latter has over 47,000 members so it was real easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and jump I did. From what little I learned from the Media at the time (and in there, lies the problem), I saw a mother who'd spent the last 12 months figuring out what lies to record on paper to help influence the general public during her current inquest trial. I must say, the timing was impeccable. 

But something just didn't sit right.

I couldn't figure out what I was pissed off about the most - whether it was the loathsome marketing of this book (cashing in on the current inquest in order to boost sales) or the fact that Ian Wishart, a highly respected investigative journalist, was involved, or.. god forbid, she was as innocent as the book claims and I'd have to return to that void of never knowing what on earth happened to those two little boys. 

Like anyone, I imagine, we all want answers. Someone killed those babies and someone knows who. The temptation to line up the entire whanau (family) in some sick torture chamber till someone confesses is as strong now as it was five years ago but I do think, in my haste for answers (any answers) I was as guilty as the 47,000 others who concluded Ms King killed her babies, and I did that without even looking inside the book to hear what she had to say.

Now that in itself, is ironic to me because my frustration in this case comes from the silence the family have kept for five years and yet, here we are, presented with streams of information, an insight to one person's perspective of events, and we're calling for a book ban, a gag order? 

Don't get me wrong, I was livid to learn, after all these years of silence, that Ms King was practically given a microphone to the world, and my knee jerk reaction was to agree with the book banning. That was until I learned that it was not actually Ms King who wrote the book and that, aside from three slices of pizza during an interview with Ian Wishart, she'd not received any endorcements or payments for her story - unlike Chris Kahui, who sold his snippet to a magazine for $10,000.

So if it's not profiteering that she's getting out of this and I'm still left with a feeling of disgust, then what is it about this woman that I find so... unforgiving?

Maybe it's because she's a mother, just like me, and I have serious doubts about any mother who would know her baby boys had historical fractured rips or bruises all over their small bodies? I mean, didn't she notice anything? What about when she had to bath them, what then? Nothing? Ian Wishart answers this with a transcript played on RadioLive - both babies were taken to hospital and had regular check ups with the Plunket Association and even those professionals didn't pick up on any "historical injuries".

My first question is this... why are we so focused on a mother's ability to see her child's  injuries? Women don't have innate powers of observation. What about the father, isn't he just as questionable?

I won't be buying the book because the only reason I would, would be to find out who did it, and if the answers were really that simple as reading a 'novel' then I'd like to think the Police would have been tipped off on that by now. Do I want to read the book just to get an insight into domestic violence and how easy it can be for a family to fall into the abyss of murder? No, not really. I have my own memories of that and for those that don't, just watch 'Once Were Warriors.'  I do believe this book would be interesting, however, if you were a Government Policy Maker cause maybe they could look at the trends within Society that make for events like this to happen - gee, and do something about it. Now there's a 'novel' idea.

For now, I believe the more you delve into this story to find answers, the more questions arise. 

Peter Jansen - Caught Telling Porkies

Sorry it's been a while but I've been trolling through my ACC file - you know, the one that Denise Cosgrove insisted would only be sent to a private box number if I collected and signed for it? Yeah that one - the same one that turned up at my workplace so poorly addressed that the manager opened it to see what on earth it was. 

So yeah, that was shock, horror, gasp moment number one. The second was looking at the list (4 pages long) of just who accessed my file in the last year - an alarming amount of people both inside and outside of ACC and all after my file had been closed - unbeknownst to me. Gee, I really hope that sensitive claims people aren't inadvertently providing just some free child porn literature service here cause a lot of people seem to be "getting off" on reading the graphic details for their own personal use in my view.

Interestingly, an email I openly admitted sending to ACC and which I posted here on my blog ('A letter to the World' May 19th, 2010) was removed from my file. It's a desperate sounding email. A last ditched attempt to get someone in that organisation to just tell me what the hell was going on. Apparently the contents are too sensitive for even me and I was the one who wrote it! ACC call that "Litigation Privilege" whatever on earth that means.   

However, a day later, May 20 2010, an ACC Project Administrator (name blacked out) sent the following email to Dr Peter Jansen:

"Hi Peter - I have just shown this email to [name blanked out] and he just wanted to check you are aware that this is currently a client of [name blacked out]"

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I aren't) but didn't Peter Jansen say he "never knew I was an ACC SCU Claimant" and would, therefore, have never attempted to sue me for $250,000? Yep, I've just checked with all the news reports, radio stations, Dr Nick Smith's statements and gee, even Jansen's own press statement the day he dropped his pathetic  legal action against me... 

"As k1w1jax was a pseudonym, I did not and could not know that she was an ACC claimant for a mental injury at the time she was making defamatory comments about me on her blog." 

So how do we explain this little porkie pie then Jansen?

There are some very serious questions here about the standard of confidentiality within ACC and moreover, accountability for when someone, like Jansen, uses client information for their own personal gain and then goes on to lie about it to not only me but NZ as a whole and to all those other sensitive claimants out there. 

My pole last month asking whether Jansen should get fired says it all - people are rightfully concerned about having a blatant liar in control of their counselling, their ability to 'get well,' or in most cases, being at the mercy of someone like Jansen who can stop your counselling altogether, and if you don't like it and question him - he'll just sue your pants off. Time to leave Jansen. 

    

What comes from the heart, goes to the heart

This beautifully talented woman, Maisey Rika, has released ond of the most heart-felt albums I have heard in a long time. My all time favorite is her song 'Nia,' dedicated to Nia Glassie (aged 3) who was systematically abused and beaten to death by her 'whanau.'

A truly inspirational piece of Art.

http://maiseyrika.bandcamp.com/track/nia

Amen................