- 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.

Thu 12th January 2017

Special Treatment for Women

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:32 pm

Special privileged treatment of women by our judiciary and media continues as normal.

In one case this week, the Coroner found that a woman killed an innocent person by driving into the victim’s car in a suicide attempt. The killer refused to cooperate with the police investigation claiming she couldn’t remember, she refused to give evidence at her trial for manslaughter and it appears that the Court also disallowed relevant evidence, so the jury didn’t have enough evidence to find her guilty. However, the Coroner was able to consider all relevant evidence and the truth was clear. The killer woman had a history of suicidal thoughts and her father had previously called police to report she was suicidal, telling police that “there is also a chance she might just drive into someone and kill herself or someone else”. Yet even the Coroner tried to downplay her culpability by expressing a belief that she made a ‘snap decision’ to drive into the victim’s car and that she didn’t mean to cause any harm to the victim. WTF? These just seem to be convenient ways for a white knight to reduce a woman’s blame. The Coroner also ordered name suppression for this selfish killer. Are women to be protected from all accountability for their wrongdoing? She’s probably out driving again as we speak.

In another case, teenage woman Lana Tutty is wanted by police who have issued a mugshot and appeal for information. However, the police refused to state what crime she is alleged to have committed. Why? This doesn’t seem typical for males wanted by police. An article on Stuff reported she faces charges for Assault with Intent to Injure and Wilful Trespass. This is serious stuff and surely the police owe the public a warning that she is dangerous. Also, without knowing the nature of the charges against her the public are less likely to feel motivated to assist police. Note also that the NZ White-Knight Herald’s story on this case attempts to turn this violent offender into a folk hero. It states nothing about her alleged crimes or dangerousness but focuses only on her ‘thumbs up’ response to the police release, how many ‘likes’ her response received and what a successful fugitive she is. Ho ho ho, what fun when a woman commits serious violence and tries to evade police.

6 Responses to “Special Treatment for Women”

  1. Deb says:

    This is typical of the court system in this country the woman can say what she likes and is taken as the truth even in accusations on crimes as serious as rape.but even when she is found out on lies still nothing is done.to bad for the person that was accused and there family.makes me so angry.just pull the old memory trick what crap! But yet if a male tried this hell no way.

  2. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    It never takes long for further examples of female privilege to arise in our media. In this one yesterday, Gaylyne Fowler through jealousy had printed off naked photos of the woman with whom her husband had been having an affair, and had distributed those photos with cut out letters from newspapers naming the woman to various people including the woman’s own husband. At the time she did this she had already separated from her husband due to his affair. For her jealous psychological violence she was charged and convicted for Offensive Behaviour and was fined $250.

    The first pussy pass for Ms Fowler was probably from the police in regard to the offence with which she was charged, carrying a maximum punitive tariff of a $1000 fine. If a male had obtained compromizing images stolen from his ex-wife’s phone or computer and had copied and distributed those images in order to take revenge on her, you might expect police to charge him with something more serious. For example:
    – Receiving Stolen Property (Crimes Act s247) (in this case images stolen from the ex-husband’s private computer or phone) carries a maximum punitive tariff of 7 years imprisonment;
    – Dishonestly Taking or Using a Document (Crimes Act s 228) carries a punitive tariff of 7 years imprisonment;
    – Accessing Computer System Without Authorization (Crimes Act s252) carries a punitive tariff of 2 years’ imprisonment;
    – Possessing an Intimate Recording (Crimes Act s 216I) carries a punitive tariff of 3 years imprisonment;
    – Publishing (including displaying) (Crimes Act s216J) an Intimtate Recording carries a punitive tariff of 3 years imprisonment.

    The second pussy pass was from the sentencing judge who, even though Ms Fowler was clearly without remorse, felt entirely justified regarding her offending and indeed stated she would do the same again, gave her a trivial punishment that was only one quarter of the maximum tariff for even the trivial offence she was charged with, without reparation for any of the victims. Even if Ms Fowler had been charged with a more serious and commensurate offence, the judge would probably only have given a trivial sentence.

    The third pussy pass was from the White Knight NZ Herald that gave this offender a soap box to boast about her offence, to justify it and to make it clear she felt no remorse; essentially to continue her psychological violence against her ex husband and his lover. Nothing in the article mentioned the harm to the victims of her offending or showed any consideration towards them. It’s appalling that the Herald would condone criminal offending in this way.

    Nothing herein is intended to support the infidelity committed by Ms Fowler’s husband or his lover. We continue to support some formal consequences for marital infidelity both by the married person and any other person who fails to respect another person’s marital commitment. Such consequences would reduce the risk that people like Ms Fowler take it upon themselves to carry out revenge violence.

  3. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Incidentally, s216G of the Crimes Act and its associated sections, involve yet another example of gender specific sexist law favouring women. The definition of ‘intimate recording’ specifies ‘female breasts’ and excludes male breasts as being ‘intimate’. This law is a recent one so we see that our parliament is concerned to avoid gender specificity only when this might benefit males but has no problem maintaining and extending gender inequality when women might be specially privileged or protected by it. We have previously challenged anyone to identify any gender-specific law that favours men but as yet none have come to light.

    It’s true that female breasts are more associated with sex than are male breasts and that it’s considered more acceptable for men than for women to display their bare breasts. However, this is only a cultural norm given that the nipples of both genders are erogenous zones, a man’s chest is a source of attraction to women, and other cultures don’t have any special attitude to women baring their breasts. Further, some men would experience at least as much embarrassment and sense of invaded privacy as women if their breasts were photographed and distributed unauthorized. For example, some men have gender atypical breast development and others don’t have manly chests, and surely they deserve as much right to privacy as women do? For our parliament to provide a special status to women’s breasts, including criminally punishing men for possessing images of women’s breasts in certain circumstances but not men’s breasts similarly, is simply and entirely sexist.

  4. simon Grat says:

    Re section s216G:

    This does appear to be yet nother example of gender inequality. This was most likely proposed by a woman who has “deep rooted breast issues”.

    These issues may include;
    No man ever having been interested in her breasts and there may be a wide range of reasons for this.

    For example:

    “inverted nipples”

    Persistent hair growth around the areola.

    Breasts touching her knees (lets assume she is of normal leg length)

    So rotund that her breasts are indistinguishable and appear as another roll.

    She may be a “Pirates Dream” with a “Sunken Chest”.

    She may be your typical “hair in a bob”, “dumpy’, “lonely”, “gender biased old fart box rug muncher and fully paid up member of rug munchers refuge”

    She may even be a “Breast Cyclops” with only one breast in the middle or even “Terminator Breast Woman” with three breasts.

    For all of the aforementioned suggestions she may be concerned that she is only wanted “For Her Mind”.

    It would appear that woman with no “deep rooted breast issues”, with appealing breasts, proud breasts, breasts that lead, breasts with personality, breasts that are smooth and yearn attention will be disadvantaged.

    What do we think “Madonna” must think of New Zealand. Next thing, her stage costumes will be outlawed by the same breast disadvantaged.

  5. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    simon Grat @ 4. Don’t quite follow your reasoning. The law basically says it’s criminal to make, possess or distribute a recording of a woman’s naked breasts but not a man’s. Thus women have a special, gender-specific legal protection of privacy regarding their breasts that men don’t.

    You may be thinking this law somehow makes breasts indecent or baring them illegal, but that’s not the case.

  6. simon Grat says:

    Yes I do get it.

    There are many women out there who are proud of their breasts. This law or its specific section relating to women’s breasts is likely to have been proposed by a woman or women with their own “deep rooted issues of breast inadequacy”.

    It is an example of gender inequality as has been pointed out, with the potential motives for the inclusion of women’s breasts (but not men’s breasts) as I have pointed out.

    What other motive could apply for a law to be proposed that it be “a criminal offense to make, possess or distribute a recording of women’s naked breasts but not men’s naked breasts”?

    I am examining the potential motive behind such drivel.

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