Another Violent Femme
Article below from Stuff, preceded by my comments. Worth recording here I think.
Golly, aren’t men violent. We definitely need some more expensive anti-domestic-violence campaigns to stop male violence against children.
Seriously though, this woman’s violence was not only terrible physical and emotional violence against a very young child, but it appeared to be serious violence against her partner by hurting the baby in front of him as part of some relationship dispute. It is hard to imagine a worse kind of partner violence. Still, no doubt that won’t be considered because who cares about women’s emotional violence towards males? If the genders had been reversed, the woman’s distress and abusive experience would be acknowledged, we would be told that she was referred to Victim Support and/or one of the numerous support services funded exclusively for women. She would be encouraged to take out a protection order and the Family Court would grant one on the spot without notice. But of course in this case when the woman is the domestic violence perpetrator the man’s victimization is not even considered worth a mention.
And I wonder why the woman is facing only two charges of violence against the child. Didn’t she deliberately drop the child numerous times? And didn’t she several times ignore and walk away from the injured child after dropping her, meaning she should also be charged with a specific offence in relation to not providing adequately for the child? You can bet your boots that if a man did it he would be charged with everything possible. Probably, in this case as usual the police tried to avoid charging the woman with anything but reluctantly agreed they had little choice.
Also, why hasn’t this heinous behaviour been splashed across the headlines of all the newspapers, radio, tv etc? If it had been a man it would have been given great publicity, refuge industry spokeswimmin such as Henare would have spouted forth about the need to protect women and children from violent men, and Helengrad may well have taken the opportunity to promote feminist propaganda and to deflect the nation’s attention from her lies and undemocratic forcing through of the feminist anti-smacking bill.
Watch this space. Based on what usually happens this violent offender will blame the man for her behaviour and then she will be given some soft, supportive sentence.
Hans
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
New Zealand news on Stuff.co.nz –
Printablehttp://www.stuff.co.nz/print/3994227a11.html
>
> Friday, 16 Mar 2007
>
> Mum threw toddler headfirst to the ground
> An angry Timaru mother dropped her 18-month daughter to the
footpath 10 or 11 times and then threw her headfirst to the ground, a
court has been told.
>
> The mother, Maraea Puawai Gray, 31, pleaded guilty in the Timaru
District Court yesterday to two counts of assaulting a child. She was
remanded on bail to April 18 for sentence.
>
> Gray’s children are in care while a report from a pediatrician is
sought.
>
> Police said on October 3 last year the defendant was involved in a
domestic dispute on Wai-Iti Road in Timaru.
>
> She had the girl with her.
>
> Police said Gray had her daughter by one arm and repeatedly lifted
the child up to between her hip and shoulder and dropped her to the
ground.
>
> Each time she landed on her side and screamed.
>
> Each time Gray’s partner walked away the child was dropped again,
the court was told.
>
> As the dispute continued Gray stood with the victim in her arms and
then threw her head-first onto the footpath.
>
> The victim’s chest hit the footpath and her body flew forward,
causing her legs to fold up behind her.
>
> When the victim lay hurt on the footpath Gray turned away leaving
the child screaming.
>
> The child was picked up by Gray’s partner.
>
> Soon after Gray and her partner walked down Wai-Iti Road taking the
victim with them.
>
> Gray was swearing at her partner. As they got to a roundabout Gray
stopped and her partner walked on.
>
> Police said Gray sat on a fence and held the child at chest height
and then threw her onto the pavement. The girl hit the ground and
screamed.
>
> Gray sat back on the fence and made no attempt to console the girl.
Her partner returned and picked up the girl.
>
> The victim was admitted to Timaru hospital but there were no
outward signs of injury.
How deranged is that. Nearly made me puke.
BTW It might be old hat but I found this today.
http://themostdangerouswomaninnz.blogspot.com/
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/pdf%27s/new%20women.pdf
Comment by Mark Lloyd — Fri 16th March 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Actually, sight must not be lost of the male partner. He should have intervened after the first single offence, and removed the child, who’s life was clearly at risk.
The mother should not be allowed to be alone with her children until the Courts establish she no longer poses a risk to them.
Oh that my own case had ever involved such a clear case of violence – then at least I would understand the judgement made against me.
Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 16th March 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Al D Rado –
Yes, I’ve heard others express a similar opinion that the male should have intevened. I don’t think it’s quite so simple. One presumes it wasn’t his child and the man was trying to leave, not initially prepared to be drawn back in to dealing with the woman who clearly was trying to manipulate him to do so by her displays of cruelty. The man initially had to make judgements about the actual risk to the child and he may well have viewed the droppings as not highly physically threatening; this judgement was borne out later when there were no significant external injuries found. The man was placed in a position of having to balance the actual risk to the child with the risk of buying into the mother’s manipulation. After the more serious throwing of the child to the ground head first, the man started intervening directly with the child. The main damage to the child was probably the emotional damage from her mother hurting and rejecting her whenever she ran back to the mother, and any intervention from the man to take the child and withhold her from her mother would have further traumatized the child. Further, the man will have been aware that the moment he touched or picked up the female child he would place himself at risk of child-abuse allegations from this woman who obviously would observe no honour or fairness in seeking to punish him, or from passersby who didn’t see the woman’s violence (because feminist propaganda about men being to blame for all evil has so effectively captured our population). And if he were to be holding the baby when the police arrived, they would also have immediately assumed he was to blame and based on the woman’s lies would probably arrest and charge him for something. So it’s a minefield for men nowadays and many men openly affirm that they would not risk helping a young child, especially a young girl, in distress for fear of false accustions. Also, the whole idea of men imposing their judgements and control on women’s behaviour is now considered sexist and bad; in fact we have nationwide indoctrination centres telling men that they are bad for exerting “power and control”. So why should men now fulfil any protecting and providing role? Feminism has trashed any social contract that existed between the genders so we can no longer expect men to keep providing the roles that previously were part of their contribution. Aside from all this, the guy will probably be blamed for the woman’s violence anyway. We all need to be careful not to condemn this man for his difficult decisions in responding to a fraught situation of the woman’s making.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 19th March 2007 @ 9:39 am