- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sun 6th October 2013

The Slogans of the White Ribbon Campaign

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,General,White Ribbon Campaign — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:36 am

White Fibbin’ supporters often defend their campaign by asserting they have a right to focus on the particular issue of protecting women from male violence, and if other people wish to focus on other forms of violence they are welcome to do so. Another justification offered is that it is a campaign started by men themselves and therefore must be ok.

Well, the White Fibbin’ campaign is supported financially by various government departments that do NOT fund initiatives specifically to protect the most frequent victims of violence in our society, MEN.

Also, take a good look at the main slogans used by the White Fibbers. An earlier one was “Mate, show you’re against violence towards women”. Clearly, the slogan shows no interest whatsoever in (the much more numerous) male victims of violence and neither does it acknowledge that women’s violence is worth being concerned about or indeed that it exists at all. Its message is in line with feminist ideology that simply targets and blames men for all ills, and in so doing it will be divisive for society and gender relations. The government departments who support the White Fibbers would consider the slogan highly unacceptable if directed at almost any other group in society. “Bro, show you’re against violence towards white people” would be blasted even if it came from a Maori group. Yet when it comes to damaging gender relations through denigratiing men, no worries, let’s fund it.

The more recent slogan of White Fibbers is “Are you man enough to stop violence towards women?” Sounds ok at first, but actually it insidiously conveys anti-male propaganda and is also self-contradictory. The anti-male propaganda lies in the implication that all men are violent towards women and in order to be a real man you must stop that violence. Weirdly, this also implies that the vast majority of men who do not commit violence towards women can never be ‘man enough’ because they have no such violence to ‘stop’. This is one of the inherent contradictions in the slogan.

Another damaging aspect of the slogan is that it labels men as violent which ironically is likely to increase male violence as men conform to the label being placed on them. That is one reason why stereotyping is so dangerous and unacceptable (except it seems when done to men).

If instead we interpret the slogan as encouraging men to stop other people’s violence towards women, another self-contradiction is evident. Sure, one could interpret this as encouraging men to phone the police or do other things if they see violence, but the slogan actually encourages them to ‘stop’ violence, not react to it responsibly. Stepping in to stop someone being violent will generally require a man to use (and to be subjected to) considerable violence himself.

A further problem with the slogan is that it is manipulatively denigrating, suggesting that men are inadequate as men if they don’t ‘stop’ violence whatever that may mean exactly. Denigrating manipulation is in fact emotional violence that if a man is alleged to use would cause the Family Court slap a protection order on him. “If you don’t stop violence towards women then you are an inadequate male” is really little different from a man saying to his female partner “If you don’t agree with my opinion you must be stupid (abnormal, frigid, ugly, insane or any other denigrating category)”.

The appalling reality is that the government departments supporting this nonsense are exactly those departments entrusted with the responsibility to promote ethical improvement in our society. The main supporter is the Families Commission. How on earth such gender divisive, male-blaming propaganda will be helpful to families is beyond us. Other departments where you will see White Fibbin’ posters include the Human Rights Commission. We didn’t realise that MEN don’t deserve the same human right as other groups to be protected from stereotyping denigration. Sadly, most other government agencies also display these posters, including WINZ, Courts and hospitals. This situation highlights the crucial need for a real Ministry of Men’s Affairs to curtail state-supported male-bashing and to protect men’s welfare. Instead though, we continue only to get a Ministry for Women that has already cost us over $100 million dollars. Men $0.

10 Responses to “The Slogans of the White Ribbon Campaign”

  1. Alastair says:

    Very well put `and an excellent use of critical analysis. Only last week Natalia Burgess Was convicted of affairs with 11 year old boys ttp://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/9222587/Facebook-predator-revealed and recently (July) Cecelia Hale (36) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10900321 convicted of having sex with a 13 year old boy.

    If these are not extreem acts of violence please tell me what is? They happen to be the last two acts I noted. I did exclude the theft by a 22 year old deputy court registrar of court documenents to gain her an advantage!

    My database now stretching back 8 years harbours some interesting facts which totally support the MMA assertions!

  2. Downunder says:

    Remember also your children may be subjected to this campaign through visits to high schools. I don’t know how many schools White Fibbers visit and how often. I am aware of one school that has been visited annually for the past three years.

  3. MurrayBacon says:

    White Fibbin are focusing attention on physical violence, as on those statistics, men do have a bad record.

    When women want to discuss “psychological violence”, they try to use that issue to beat down men. If you look past their rhetoric, you will see that “psychological violence” done by women is also a serious social problem.

    If we look at several aspects of such “psychological violence”, then we see the following:

    1. emotional and physical neglect of children, leading to badly damaged childhoods and even psychopathic development,

    2. sexual abuse of children includes “psychological violence”,

    3. perjury and abuse of protection orders, to abuse fathers

    4. “psychological violence” of husbands within marriage and after divorce

    5. abuse through IRD Child [and Spousal} Support

    6. perjury and abuse of Relationship Property Act divisions, similar to 5 above.

    7. false rape allegations, (possibly after only changing their mind).

    I have tried to list these roughly in reducing order of total social damage resulting, not the individual degree of damage.

    I am not wishing to beat down women in particular, just to say lets try to address all of these problems, in particular addressing the need to protect vulnerable individuals from out of control aggressors. (Inadequate penalties???)

    Although men are often presented as tough, strong, individuals, in many of the situations listed above, men have little capacity to protect themself from the actual nature of the abuse. Sure, this should not be the case, but can men actually protect themselves from these abuses?

    1 and 2 The familycaught$ says it is leading improvements in child protection, but leaving children fatherless, in the care of poorly equipped mothers, in many cases leaves them extremely vulnerable to emotional neglect and sexual abuse. Is it reasonable to expect these children to protect themselves? I suggest that it is the actions and omissions of familycaught$, that is the single largest hazard that our children are exposed to.

    I have previously commented on my application to familycaught$, to attempt to protect my children from within NZ abduction by their mother. How could I protect myself or my children from a judge who says “I am not here for men, I am here for women and children”. Although she said “for children”, as far as I could see, she was working to serve my ex-wife, against the interests of my children. Could I be reasonably be expected to protect myself or my children in this situation?

    3. Lets consider the several thousand men stitched up by POs based on perjury and “psychological violence”.

    4. NZ suicide statistics testify to the degree and quantity of abuse that many men suffer, during marriage and through separation and divorce. Although it is easy to ignore the linkage between familycaught$ abuse, it takes only a small amount of discussion with people who counsel men to have the consequences of these abuses made very clear.

    5 and 6. Child [and Spousal] Support are large scale drivers of suicide and of fathers chased out of NZ, creating hazard for the children, as in 1 and 2.

    7. Consider what was done to David Dougherty. He was stitched up by police and a lazy legal worker paid by legal worker’s aid. Could he be reasonably be expected to protect himself in this situation? He was only protected several years later, through the eforts of his sister and a lady newspaper reporter. He suffered very seriously from these experiences, far more than the Government’s cash compensation offer addressed. It is easy to say harden up, but only a psychopathic legal worker, who had never faced these challenges could make such a suggestion.

    Lets get real about the needle and the damage done.

    Presently we tolerate malpractice in our caught$, rather than holding these thieves to account. It is not just a money issue, the damage to children and men is a much larger issue. We need to actively address these issues. Election coming up. Sounds as though we need consciousness raising and protests!

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  4. MurrayBacon says:

    I suggest that men’s violence is a serious issue and if slotted into the list above, would be about 3 or 4.

  5. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    White Fibbin are focusing attention on physical violence, as on those statistics, men do have a bad record.

    Yes that’s true. However, men are also more frequently than women the victims of domestic violence including homicide, and men are by far more frequently the victims of physical violence in society generally. The fact that such violence is more often committed by other men is of little relevance to the victim’s suffering or to the right of male victims to be included in a government-funded campaign against violence. It would not be acceptable to leave Maori victims out of that campaign simply because violence against them is more likely to be committed by other Maori, now would it? So why does anyone think it’s acceptable to do so regarding male victims? (Answer: because men are now treated as subhumans, slaves or 2nd-class citizens.)

    Also, while men are undoubtedly considerably more violent (physically at least) than women are, the physical violence committed by women is still significant and should not be ignored or denied.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    As MoMA points out, White Fibbin wish to choose the area of argument to suit their desired outcomes.

    I would suggest that as every single one of the developers of understanding of child development was a man, throughout the world, that bringing up children is too subtle a kind of work, to be left to women alone.

    Women are clearly insufficiently sensitive to children’s needs and development, to be able to contribute materially to understanding child development. Accordingly, they should be relegated to a subsidiary role in bearing and bringing up children, to minimise the damage done to children, by being left in women’s care alone.

    Urie Bronfenbrenner
    Jean Piaget
    Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky
    John Bowlby
    Erik Erikson
    John B. Watson

    I hope that this explains why Care of Children Act 2004 ostensibly protects children’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. Oh that the familycaught$ honoured Parliament’s legislation. MurrayBacon.

  7. Rachel Rolston says:

    Well said all of you. Totally agree. I actually communicated with a WR’er who thought that men would learn to respect women more if we cut off all your penises. Amazing! Utter feminist anti-male garbage, the lot of it. Not welcome in my book.

    Now, when is the next Tauranga event for Black Ribbon? Where do I go to sign up?

  8. Downunder says:

    White Ribbon are typical feminists, always trying to give new meaning to a word;now they want to redefine circumcism.

  9. kumar says:

    I coincidently saw them in Tauranga CBD.
    Good campaign…good effort.Welldone!!

  10. Rocky says:

    Saw this on Aust morning breakfast TV.

    “Hitting women is the ultimate coward punch” – Karl. We discuss in The Grill #Today9

    https://twitter.com/TheTodayShow/status/455495683013746688

    On a segment called ‘Girls on the Grill’ – 3 female panelists get to vent about latest issues. This one however was orchestrated by buffon male host that regularly sprouts misinformed personal views equating it to equally populist law to give madatory 8 yr sentences to drunk youths that hit and kill with one punch at 1-3am in the morning.

    It always amazes me how untrained & uninformed TV personalities get to preach to the public, their opinions…. simply because they have a morning TV slot!

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2019 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar