Feminist Research
An astonishing article on National Radio this morning about Marianne Tremaine, described as “an executive of the Centre for Women and Leadership at Massey University” (what’s the bet there isn’t one for men…). The National Radio link will only last for a week but after that I will have a copy of this interview for anyone who wants it. Ms Tremaine is about to be awarded her PhD for her research into women mayors, and she has already won an international journalistic literary award. Here’s a Listener article that describes some of her findings. Apparently, she interviewed a number of NZ women mayors, no male mayors, and concluded that women mayors were much better than men at their jobs because they had “balanced egos” and unlike men were not “too concerned about themselves” to be able to see what the community needed. Apparently the lady mayors tended to admire the kinds of attributes that women mayors had rather than men mayors (how surprising). According to the women mayors, communities were much more impressed with women mayors and formed much closer bonds with them (so how come many communities vote for men?).
Ms Tremaine had “noticed” that since women had become mayors, “suddenly people were starting to talk about OUR mayor rather than THE mayor” (now that sounds like good, reliable demographic research). Women were less hierarchical and bonded better etc etc. A woman mayor, also on the radio interview, claimed that women are not like bulls in the paddock (what, no testicles?), and are not as competitive as men are (Na na, I’m a lot more noncompetitive than you are). But wait, there’s more! Women are much more willing to let a project go rather than to pursue it even if it’s important to them (Sue Bradford was a good example huh?), they like strong debate (but isn’t that what protection orders are for?) and they will always prefer consensus (yeah, Bradford clearly had the country behind her…). A male mayor was also interviewed and said that he would have liked to be interviewed too if he was to be compared to female mayors, and that he found the research sexist (what patriarchal cheek, I don’t know why anyone would even bother to interview a man…).
Ms Tremaine was able to reach these insightful conclusions even though she did no study whatsoever of male mayors, because for some reason this would have made her study “too narrow”.
This seems typical of the stuff on which feminism is founded. To be fair, Ms Tremaine’s writing may be meritorious in a literary sense, but as a contribution to our understanding of mayoralty and/or gender how can it possibly be helpful except as feminsit propaganda? In my view this kind of contribution to human knowledge represents a serious threat to our education process and to any role for logical rigour in determing our beliefs.
An irony here is that the biased methodology and the circular, self-serving, chauvinist nature of the conclusions it generated directly contradicted the attributes that Ms Tremaine claims make women superior to men.
I recall after the first term of the Clark government several women MP’s retired, finding the lifestyle too tough. In her valedictory one claimed that with more women in parliament the standard of debate had improved markedly. What? Debating may have changed to suit women better but did that mean it had improved? Is Helen Clark’s patronizing, ridiculing, sarcastic and evasive way of debating, or rather avoiding real debate, necessarily better than the robust, loud, clear, cards-on-the-table argument more typical of men? Apparently so, according to feminism. Male behaviour equals violent behaviour. And of course, don’t give men any credit for creating all existing systems of government, democracy and methods of political participation. If they were designed by men they must be badly flawed. Now that women are on the scene, everything will be better. Yeah, right.
I heard some of this in the background yesterday. Besides reacting in the same way as Hans, quite astonished that the findings where neither qualitative or quantitative, bu simply biased and discriminatative associated as closely to what the woman called common sense as to what she thought every sense would be common there are two more points.
The first is that the woman was saying women ignore the issues more directly than men. Women smooth the edges better, so and that makes everybody more happy. The second point is more interesting. If any listen before its taken off air, check to see if you think the parting comment of the male interviewer was snide on departure. I think he said “thank you for your consensus”.
Nine to Noon had an element in it that should make people begin to sit up, whether male of female. Kathryn Ryan pushed forward more aggressively into coordinating a stock opinion of disunity with the way society is in function as relative to women’s health and administrative manipulation. There has been a retraction of Kaipara Health policy of gifting women $100 if they leave hospital after six hours of giving birth. This has been unanimously seen as a bribe as a means to accomodate a problem with a lack of midwives.
(Not suprising really the amount of responsibility, scrutiny and critical emphasis they are forced to endure is greater than that of say a male working with children in early/pre or primary school education. The pressure must be extraordinary for the midwife, given the direct connection with life from not quite life, where the subjection to evaluation by everyone viewing the behaviours of the male as if already likely guilty for being male, of some kind of crme needing first to prove otherwise guaranteed).
Yet after that debate settled a more connected with a possibly corrupt practice was brought to the listeners attention. A woman cancer (I think it was cancer – cannot be absolutely certain) sufferer had just returned from hospital. She arrived to a letter fromt he hospital and opened it thinking it was relative to her treatment. It wasn’t. It ewas an invitation for her to donate to the hospital because the world is tough and the hospital is stretched for funds needing to apply every resource to keep ahead in life. She took exception on two counts. The first and most obvious was that she was in a fragile state and the letter at that time was unkind and direct. The second was that the address read with her full name. Her (hobby as I remember) was as a geneologist and she explained that for the hospital to have her whole name was remarkable. It could only be provided from a data base that had taken extraordinary lengths to be compiled. How could the hospital have done this research? Why?
Now Katherine Ryan here missed the point and stupidly, (already insensed by the former perversion by gender persuassion on the mayoralty idiocy), I rallied at the radio pleading with her to “ask the question”: Ask the Proper question!”. Funnily she replied to teh woman being interviewed saying “I hear you” – but them never asked “the question”. She asked the woman what she was going to do about it and the woman while describing she still had an interest retired. It’s not her job to ask the question. It belongs to the media. This is why any f us listen to what they are doing. The question that was left begging was the connection between the woman leaving the hospital and receiving the letter. Had she been targeted after having left as vulnerable and suseptible to being asked to donate funds. The impression we had been left to conclude was that it was random mail out as purchased personal details from data base sales people.
Connecting the three stories there is a further element that can be drawn into teh debate and it is this component of the sinister. This sinister behaviour would be consistent with targeting a cancer patient on their return home and then making them so guilty about their cost on a system that they felt obliged to donate to an already funded health system. Personally I think men feel uncomfortable with that kind of thing: but that’s me just being sexist.
Katherine, however, got the last comment in and put me in my place. Her director then played a song that was smoothing, melodious and wordless at first and then the tuneful melody of a woman’s voice increased the tempo of its nature, building and building. The words of the song? Rise up – rise up – rise up. Any apology that I should make to Radio New Zealand National for jumping to a conclusion that the media hosts do not have a full connection with bring these gender biased atrocities into check were balanced to Katherine Ryan’s apology (in the same vein) for having played the song as being “open soul”.
Good advise I thought.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 1st December 2007 @ 7:35 am
Talking about feminazi whores , Rowena Cave is in charge of research at the Families Commission ? Go figure !!
Comment by dad4justice — Sun 2nd December 2007 @ 9:33 am
Can we not bring a law on witchcraft back ?
Comment by swashy — Mon 3rd December 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I’m currently 2,134,872nd in the priority queue for treatment at the newly founded E U Nuch Centre for Feminist Excellence.
Once I complete my specially tailored treatment programme, I too will make a much better mayor. I shall then seek a Royal seal of approval (formerly a knighthood), and thereafter be known as Sir Mayor. Those who oppose my concensus methods shall know me more informally as Knight Mayor.
As a newly dis-encumbered member of the Sisterhood of E U Nuch’s, I shall then proceed to promote The New Idealogy (ie pro-feminist policies) and grandiose schemes the like our founding Sisters (i.e. Fran Wilde) could only dream about. Wellington Waterfront Wagers; Sesqui Sqaunders, Tranmission Gully Gutsfulls.
I too shall be a people person!
Free medical treamment for all women everywhere! Free DPB for all! Ban the House-Head Man! Instant DPO’s (no trial needed)! Men-less Education! Seperate planes, trains and buses for Women (and children)!
Oh the list could go on.
Vote for me, please.
Yours,
U Nick.
Comment by Al D Rado — Mon 3rd December 2007 @ 6:52 pm
I JUST WANTED TO TELL EVERYONE that today in the family court, my temporary protection order was discharged, and next year , i will get shared care , and my my twin sons will be back in my life.
My impression of the family court, was very positive to be honest. My female laaawyer had been brought up solely by her dad since she was seven , and she told me that the local women’s group had banned her from the Xmas party, because she had won so many cases for Dads !
Comment by swashy — Tue 4th December 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Yay – bro
Have a massive Christmas!
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 4th December 2007 @ 4:17 pm
I am still trying to persist with the “Bring Back Witchcraft Laws” campaign though
Comment by swashy — Tue 4th December 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Good on ya swashy . Great news all round – cheers dude .
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 4th December 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I’m so pleased for you Swashy.Have a wonderful Christmas and an even better new year.
Comment by rosie — Tue 4th December 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Thanks, guys.
I also appeared in Criminal court, for car chases, fires, breaches, all sorts, and WAS DISCHARGED for everything too, and not even any reparations. 2 victories for mankind in 2 days , sorry still hyer,
Thanks for your support
Martin
Comment by swashy — Wed 5th December 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Hey swashy, were’d you find your lawyer, what’s her name?
Comment by Paul — Wed 5th December 2007 @ 11:15 pm
I live in Wellington and the family court/lawyer is in Porirua, if you do not choose a local lawyer, then you will be paying loads in travelling costs, so it is really better if you find a local one who is male friendly.
Comment by swashy — Sun 9th December 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Sue Bradford needs to get her own house into some kind of order from what I have been told about it
Comment by rosie — Tue 11th December 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Has anyone heard about this guy in England, he voluntarily donated some sperm to a lesbian couple , now he must pay child support AND cannot afford to have a child with his own wife
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=78012&in_page_id=34
Comment by swashy — Wed 12th December 2007 @ 10:21 am
http://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/services5.asp
check out this site and ask them some questions.
You probably won’t get a reply
Comment by rosie — Thu 13th December 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Regarding the fertility associates page, men own the copyright to their own DNA. Anyone want to use it, they pay royalties to the man for the lifetime of the offspring. Sounds ridiculous eh? But think on it.
I make the point that all these ridiculous PC laws apply to the lawmakers as well. These riduculous laws should be used by decent people to refute those who interfere in our daily lives. Why don’t we start applying ALL the laws to them as well. There are so many laws in this country and many of them are in conflict with each other. The point must be made – WHICH laws are we to abide by and WHICH laws are to be disregarded? These laws can and should be used for our own protection and well-being as well. It is past time in this country for men to refuse to tolerate BS and make a stand ***for themselves*** regardless of the consequences.
Regarding politicians who deliberately pass laws clearly based on false ideals, ie anti-smacking legislation, the message must be persistent, direct and clear to them: ‘You don’t fool anyone, you know what you’re doing, you’re deliberately working against the families, no-one is that ignorant, Do as you’re bloody well told!’
Just to correct a serious error in society attitudes. ‘The children are the most important members of a family’. Women say that. ‘The mother is the most important in a child’s life’. Women say that. ‘Children may be aborted without the father’s knowledge or consent because it’s a woman’s right to choose’. Women say that. ‘Women can do anything’. Women say that. ‘Hell hath no fury like a women scorned’. Women say that. Where do men come in in those arguments? Society wants to change the rules at the expense of men? Nobody asked the men. I say they damned well should. Women may well do as they please, but not at a man’s expense and self-respect.
I remember a story, may be true but illustrates the point.
A woman laden with shopping and parcels gets on a crowded bus. A man is sitting in the front seat. She looks at him and asks very loudly, ‘Well aren’t you going to offer me your seat?’ He asked her, ‘Do you believe in women’s lib?’ ‘Certainly!’ she replied. ‘Well stand like a man!’ he told her.
I suggest that is the legacy that women have made for themselves with their self-worshiping feminism. Most right thinking men show respect to anyone as is proper and that should be acknowledged, but the patronising, disrespectful demands made by these haughty self-important types should be treated with the direct response it deserves. We have the right to act with dignity, forthrightness, self respect and integrity in spite of false allegations and snide innuendo portrayed by the media. Who made woman the final authority on who we are? Who must we ask permission of before we speak of right and wrong? Damn it, we’re men and no apology is needed for that.
Congratulations and respect to the men who are hanging in and doing what’s right by themselves and their situation.
Comment by Gaz — Mon 24th December 2007 @ 12:35 pm
My new years resolution.
I hate my husband’s ex so much for all the grief she has caused us.But in allowing myself to feel this way,she automatically becomes the ‘winner’.
I have often thought that if a bus was to run over her,there would still be body parts sticking out at all angles because she is so obese.
It’s a new year tomorrow and I have decided to relax a bit more and let karma be the judge and jury from now on.
Comment by rosie — Mon 31st December 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Good on you Rosie – I’ll try do the same with my situation. What comes around goes around…here’s to me and you – loving our kids and step kids and putting them first before money and greed!!!I hope you and your husband have a great 2008.
Comment by Karen — Fri 4th January 2008 @ 12:56 pm
I kind of feel sorry for Britney Spears now, after my experiences with the FC, maybe she should join a fathers group
Comment by Perseus — Sat 5th January 2008 @ 4:30 pm
According to Otago University,it costs $40 a week for food for a ten year old.
Being rather liberal here,electricity would cost $10 a week per child.
Clothing -$10 a week.
Schooling- $20 a week.
Pocket money -$10 a week.
Sports and recreation- nil if a ten year old is already obese.
Health care-$10 a week.
That comes to a total of $100 a week.
Now both parents are supposed to contribute equally financially,towards their child’s support,or so I thought.
My figures add up to $50 a week for each parents costs of financially supporting a ten year old child.
The emotional support will naturally be charged on how much it costs to support an ex wife’s life style.
Comment by rosie — Sat 5th January 2008 @ 7:24 pm
dad4justice, RC is very active in trying to get david bain compensation.
VERY active!!! http://www.counterspin.co.nz
Comment by rotciv — Tue 9th February 2010 @ 9:46 am
Reply to Swashy
….A warm congratulation to you Swashy…. And hefty three cheers to you, and to your Lady Lawyer,well done to both of you.
As a Father can you please give your Lady Lawyer a big thank you from me.
Thank goodness there are some Lady Lawyers still left in N.Z that have been brainwashed by this Extreme Kiwi Socail Engineering Feminist propaganda …Great News.
I am not surprised that your Lady Lawyer as been banned from the Local Woman’s group….
‘Tongue in Cheek’ and just ‘Stirring the Pot’….Maybe your Lady Lawyer hasn’t yet experienced the joy of been liberated by Kiwi Feminism…And I pray she doesn’t either…..!!!!!!
As for your comment… ‘My impression of the family court was very positive to be honest’…. Concerning your experience the Family Court…That is so refreshing to hear….Maybe there is a glimmer of hope after all for all us decent and loving Fathers who have to go thought the Family courts to get access to see and care for there own Children..
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 9th February 2010 @ 11:16 am
‘Ms Tremaine was able to reach these insightful conclusions even though she did no study whatsoever of male mayors, because for some reason this would have made her study “too narrow”.
‘…Yeah right,have heard the usual Feminist spin
A pity Miss Tremaine wasn’t asked on what was her Socail Engineering Kiwi Feminist opinion on the ‘Peter Ellis’ case….??? that usually trips up the racial Extreme Feminists…
When I debate with Feminists and hear there usual Man hating spin,I ask them this question with a smile…..and in ‘Tongue in Cheek’…..;
‘Excellent,heavens forbid if you do have a Son,if you do have a Son,or a Brother,would ‘you’ recommend to your Son/Brother that he becomes a ‘Male School Teacher’ here in N.Z…???.,After all you Kiwi Feminists have the greatest pleasure in telling us Evil Kiwi Men that We are all potential Rapists and Potential Pedophiles…Correct…????
So I take it you have the same opinion concerning your Son,brothers and even your Father….Am I correct here’ ????’….
And the usual reply I get from the our beloved Kiwi Feminist…A stony deathly Silence….
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 9th February 2010 @ 11:35 am
Check this site out
Comment by rotciv — Tue 6th April 2010 @ 9:23 am
rotciv; why should we check out that site? What relevance is it to the thread subject?
Comment by noconfidence — Tue 6th April 2010 @ 10:15 am
Here’s Carey Roberts’ latest comment on the true face of modern feminism.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 23rd June 2010 @ 10:21 pm