Misandry on National Radio
I was listening to Jim Mora’s program on National Radio on Friday afternoon, where he featured guest speakers Michelle Boag, Lianne Dalziel and a third woman whose name I don’t recollect.
Dalziel was rather warm about news that had come to her attention recently: apparently women appointed to run large companies statistically show poorer performance in terms of delivering value to shareholders. A more recent ‘study’ (I immediately switch to high-alert mode when I hear this term) suggested the reason for this was due to the fact that companies in peril were more likely to hire a woman to head the company than a man, ie women CEOs were getting served hospital passes.
Rather than consider such an assertion with the scepticism that it merits, Dalziel leapt on it with the enthusiasm of the desperate. She seriously suggested that directors imperil their companies so that when collapse occurs, they can resort to the defense “Well what do you expect? It was run by a woman.” The 3rd woman on the show was even more vehement in faulting men’s complicity in women’s failure in business. She went further to say that it was always businessmen, not businesswomen, who responded to business collapse by withholding payment to creditors while hiding their own considerable assets, thereby demonstrating their inability to understand the suffering they inflict on others (shades of the fabled wealthy deadbeat dad here?).
The ease with which these women accepted this nonsense surprised me .Not because open misandry is unusual, but because a woman of such high office would resort to it on such a public forum with no real thought of the consequences. I would suggest that she’s used to the company of people who talk in this way, without challenging each other and safe in the knowledge that there will be no real public response. Did it not occur to them that no-one is ever forced to accept a position as CEO? That perhaps women eagerly compete for the leadership role of a company in trouble because for the last 30 years they have been told girls can do anything and men are incompetent? That the consequences of failure are not visited upon women with the same harshness as it is with men? That a man would never expect a panel of other men to explain away his failure on National Radio – one of whom is a cabinet minister?
Don’t these women realise that in rushing to the aid of others simply because they are women, and readily accepting anything that makes them feel better about themselves, it is they, not we men, who reinforce the image of women not being equally capable?
And to answer the ridiculous assertion that it is only men who suffer from a lack of ethics in business, I read today of the prohibition order against Robyn Case (no connection). I leave you to decide if we men have no female company in the realm of deceit, chicanery, denial and unrepentance.
Good post Rob. Funny about Rob and Robyn. lol But here is Robyn’s website.
justicesucks.com
If you are interested in her side.
Comment by julie — Sun 15th July 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Thanks Julie, both for your kind words, and the link to Robyn Case’s blog.
I read everything she has to say for herself, and learned nothing material. If she wants to present her side, she needs to present some details about the case brought against her, and leave out the invective against everyone involved in the order against her. Identifying with David Bain, Peter Ellis, David Dougherty and Arthur Allan Thomas also doesn’t help – it gives the appearance of trying to court sympathy by association.
After posting, I went back to the newspaper article in the Herald and noticed something I hadn’t picked up on before. Tell me if I’m drawing a long bow on this.
The article is headlined ‘Collapsed college owner is banned from business’ and reports in some detail the case against Case (!!), but the portrait photograph is of a man. (A certain Shane Wenzel, mentioned once in the details). There is no photograph of Robyn Case herself. Isn’t this a little unusual?
Wouldn’t it give the impression to the casual reader, skimming over headlines and photos for something interesting to read, that the story is that of just another failed businessman caught out?
I mention this because I heard on the very same radio program of Jim Mora’s (I think it was from Michelle Boag) that some 90% of journalism students are now female. What effect this would have on balanced reporting I can’t quantify, but I can say that it isn’t a good look.
Comment by Rob Case — Sun 15th July 2007 @ 9:54 pm
Hi Rob,
I too found Robyn’s site hard to follow so I quit caring early on. I know there seems to be more to the picture and Shane is involved but i don’t really know how.
She linked to menz so I stayed for a little while because I liked her title.
But as for female journalists I think it will be good for men’s rights because we have at least 2 single mother journalists in our group and they are interested. They have told me that they have had something to do previously with men’s rights but found the men so angry they couldn’t comprehend nor empathise. I like to look at this from a business sense so I can understand the problems. It is that the males brought upon themselves the disgruntled dads remarks. Sorry to say but that is why new blood is always important to get ahead. That way people can push the cause reasonably and once they get to burn out stage and over angry they can quit and let even newer blood take over.
Your post about these women is the same. See how burn’t out they are? That will be ther downfall. And they are bringing it upon themselves. What sort of leaders call fathers deadbeats? What sort of a prime minister tells the nation “Men have to compete under their women rulership?”
Half these women journalists want to be journalists for a career. They will take it to heart. Truth is what they want and truth is what they shall find if they look and it is presented right to them.
Comment by julie — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 3:22 pm
I only caught up with small sections of the item and interestingly in the section you are quoting from Rob. And I formed the same reply from what I heard, although the way I got it is that Michelle Boag was as much complicit in the construction of detail as anyone else in the programme. Probably just the way different people listen to how another communicates having preconceived ideas about what they are saying and I haven’t heard anything yet from Michelle Boag that makes me confident she would balance social need against her fiscal demand. It was pretty obvious though no matter who thought what. The debate was producing this “I will damn if I do and I will damn if I don’t” kind of mentality that women constantly complain they are the primary recipient. I’m not sure how many folk listening figured this out but hope to think that it was obvious enough for a few people to pick it up.
On Sunday morning – and again I didn’t get to hear all of it there was an interesting discussion on Radio NZ National where three women were interviewed on their experiences from the session of youth parliament. Chris Laidlaw introduced them as three of the more vocal. It was certainly interesting listening to their comments – and that I go to parliament and sit in the gallery on as many days the House is in session as I can I had a pretty good idea about the issues they were discussing.
The point in bringing this to my writing is that I was left with the impression that the change over in gender is nothing more than a simple swirtch in who has power will use it to their advantage no matter any alternative where to eomploy the alternative is inconsistant with want. This dialogue about discrimination would be fine if those who exercised in its new found power – particularly women were honest – and recognised that the group now discriminated against (no: not blacks – no, not even whites – nope: not women – nope, not even men where some men who will still get to advance in this allegedly non gender bias) is Children.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Benjamin,
That is pretty smart of you to choose children as your cause. You need power. How do you get power is the question? Have you ever thought of a trust?
Waht many are not understading of this game is that the same trustess are on many groups. This is the way it is for corporations in NZ too. Judges and judges wives and lawyers who want to be judges do this also. It is just a game.
Whose rules ARE you playing with? I think you have 2 choices. One is that you get ALL men or at least the majoirty to go on strike or two you turn the system on itself. You beat it at it’s own game.
First choice is impossible in the short term but the second choice is not.
How far does this have to go?
Comment by julie — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Agenda on Saturday morning was dubious. It was the first show without Lisa Owen and the second I had seen after quite a break. I don’t know why she was stepped down from her position, where I liked her balance and removal from the more stoic and cardboard styles of other TVNZ journalists. Still Richard (I think his name is)Harman (Producer) knows best. But does he? In her place – instead of interviewing Phil Goff the guest was another invited guest to handle the interview – and what an interview it was. Guyon Espiner was given the one to one responsibility on trade with Mr.Goff. My interest in writing here isn’t specifically to do with trade, yet I do have a particular interest in what is being said and the relationship that is being negotiated with China. I buy my vegetables at the local market on Sunday. Guyon and Phil chummied up to over look in the public interest the difficult questions to be asked about imports from China. The interest by the public is whether or not we are being poisoned by our imports. It is a massive problem growing over the world, but not that you would believe this to be so between Guyon and Phil. The skirted the problem in one question and reply Mr. Goff saying that the principles used over issues like worker exploitation and toxic manufacture will be consistent with the UNited Nations. So that ended my worries that the yellow tinged garlic I had to buy if I wanted extra flavour in my potatoes was seasoned in sulphur. I had already listened to an earlier item on imports so had a good idea how Mr. Goff would have replied if asked any curly questions on vegetables – but that isn’t the point. The point is we are being duped.
Guyon Espiner and Phil Goff in the media are about my two favourite (I’m being pretty sarcastic here Julie) people.
Phil Goff because he signed off on the Governor General’s advice, excusing her (Dame Sylvia Cartwright) from granting me the Royal prerogative of mercy. I had identified in my application how the Court of Appeal justices had conveniently overlooked the procedural evidence and their requirement to function by not giving me access to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. At the time family law wasn’t accessible to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – how convenient. Mr. Goff signed off that the Governor General couldn’t investigate my allegations that the Court of Appeal justices did not look at the evidence: refusing to look at the evidence I presented because that was the job of the Court of Appeal. How convenient. At that stage I believed it was Her Majesty who was our Queen – yet I know differnet now.
And I figure logic, law and truth was equally insulted by Guyon Espiner when I was busking my politics on a Saturday evening when he and fellow political reporter from TV3 rolled by on their night out, suggesting I take my story on the faulted introduction of the Care of Children Bill to Clint Brown. That was the weekend of Clint Brown’s demise getting into an altercation in Taupo and eventually losing his job. So they both know what I am talking about and they have both cheated the public of the truth.
In saying this, although I still have my complaint to put into the Ombudsman’s Office this week I would dearly love someone to come out from within the wordwork of this site and reply to me as to why I am wrong. I would then be able to comment on the letters of reply I have from the Human Rights Commission and the Miniter of Justice – refer to my court files and compare these to the facts of my allegations. So why not? Why won’t your publicly funded braodcaster come out and reply to these clear allegations of their corruption? Because they would lose the argument. Guyon would be seen to be deceiptful as would Phil Goff. And then what would the public think?
The sad thing for those of government who figure that using son’s and daughters like they are carrots before the ass unless they want the stick is they have to be sure that they protect the carrots First.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Benjamin,
I didn’t read all you wrote but ‘Who are you for people to listen to.”
What is your “specialality?”
Why would they want to listen to you?
Working hard is all good, I believe. but working smart and hard is the key.
Comment by julie — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 4:39 pm
“…the way I got it is that Michelle Boag was as much complicit in the construction of detail as anyone else in the programme”
Thanks for the verification Benjamin, I was listening to a pocket transistor so I wasn’t able to always match voice with speaker. Lianne Dalziel’s and the other woman guest’s voices were the only two that I could clearly associate, so I assumed the diatribe was between them only.
I distinctly heard Jim Mora begin to scoff at the woman who proposed that only men lacked ethics in business, but, for reasons best known to himself, he didn’t persist.
Julie,
I couldn’t agree more that new blood is needed, in any profession. It’s the 90% female figure in journalism that concerns me. Your comment about the 2 single-mother journalists you know supports this concern. Journalists are supposed to put their own emotions and sense of empathy to one side in pursuit of the truth. Wherever there is anger, most especially intense anger on a scale that one could call a social phenomenon, there is a truth waiting for the bold to write about. Journalists who won’t do this out of personal repugnance should get another job. As blunt as this sounds, how else can it be said?
Comment by Rob Case — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 4:53 pm
I don’t want anyone to listen to me Julie – I’m just blithering at the mouth as ever – waiting for an individual, like you, to organise a meeting in west Auckland where the men like me get a voice and there is enough likability about the organiser for noone to feel that they will be hurt. Because people like me ‘apparently’ are toxic and that we have undergone the pain of separation from our children and that our children have undergone that pain on the default by a system not reason enough to be heard.
Do you get my point? My point is Julie is that it is people like me who are the reaon why people like you you help us to be heard – not implied we are not doing enough.
UNless of course this is some form of mild indirect encouragement to express myself more to institute the exlpanation of what I am saying. Which it isn’t or you would have read the whole lot – not just up to the bit that made your heckles rise.
June 10th & June 11th 2003. That’s me. You haven’t got anyone else in that department – not unless Bevan reinstitutes the power of his complaint on the HRC in a way we haven’t yet seen.
I’m not being rude to you Julie I am being consistant but you are still missing what is being said. Don’t do anyhting different other than to think that there might be a slightly different light to which the picture is exposed.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Hey Rob,
Women are different to males. Facts and feel are different too. It is not that hard to get the better of a female. (me excluded because I know too much, lol) But men can do it if they want to. And the same is for males from a females perspective.
I read your comments and I smile because you are looking at logic even though I don’t comment after you. Yes, women go to University to find a worthwhile husband. That is common sense. A male with an education can earn well. But then so can a working class man with a woman loving him and behind the scenes.
Benjamin,
You came up to Auckland to motivate us. Remember? This group is just the beginning and it needs to grow to other areas. You can’t back down now. What I am doing in a way is scary because I have to fight even to get the local Mad Butcher shop to put my flyer in their window. The insanity to think men are monsters is everywhere. I can’t do this without you. Don’t you know that?
I am not your answer. This is a team effort.
Comment by julie — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 6:31 pm
“I read your comments and I smile because you are looking at logic even though I don’t comment after you. Yes, women go to University to find a worthwhile husband. That is common sense. A male with an education can earn well. But then so can a working class man with a woman loving him and behind the scenes.”
Julie,
I have no idea how any of the above relates to what I’ve said, but clearly you felt the need to say it.
To spell out my gist to other readers, I believe a 90% female representation amongst journalists would lead to presentation of news from a female perspective. It could also admit tampering and padding of news stories to obfuscate unfavourable messages. Spin, in other words. It would account, for example, for news articles in which a woman is prosecuted for improper business practices being presented in a way that suggests the guilty person is actually a man, and that it’s not until the fourth paragraph into the story that the gender of the prosecuted person is revealed.
Your comment on logic is an interesting one. Logic is no more than the application of reason. Men and women make use of it equally, but the style each of us uses, irrespective of sex, varies. I suspect that when fear is dominant in our emotional landscape, our logic concentrates on the covert. With equanimity, we tend to be more open.
It’s a pity Hans Laven has stopped posting. A psychologist’s perspective would have been welcome.
Comment by Rob Case — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 9:46 pm
lol Rob,
I did feel the need to say it. I didn’t say it on the comment you left about your neice and nephew because it would go against the grain thought of women taking over the world.
Women are not so bad. Not all of them.
You have your mind set on what 90% of female journalists means so I cannot change that.
Comment by julie — Mon 16th July 2007 @ 10:37 pm
You’re quite right Julie, my mind is set on what it means. My mind is also set on what the effect would be of:
1) 90% of journalists are men
2) 90% of parliamentarians are men
3) 90% of academics are men
4) 90% of the judiciary are men
The effect would be that women would feel issues and law don’t take account of their views. Women would feel that society is dominated by men, and they would come up with a word (how about “Patriarchy”?) to describe the one-sidedness of their experience.
One doesn’t need to think men or women are all bad to appreciate this. I certainly don’t.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 17th July 2007 @ 9:26 am
I think your emotions are on your sleeve Julie. Isn’t that a traditional difference between men and women? If your looking at logic as a term hasn’t Rob described it clearly enough although I disagree (ilogically) with his perception of its manipulability.
In (and as in) my untrained and unschooled perspective the term logic applies to an objective principle and cannot properly be subjugated. Logic commands magnanimously in the cell of the finite. The logic on how many journalists should change a light bulb determines that some effective studies should be concluded before we lemming to any end.
Have you talked to teh Mad Butcher? Did he say no he wouldn’t support you, or did you talk to the local staff? If you talked to the Mad Butcher did you introduce your take (Maori word for purpose) on proving the discrimination against men exists and how he could assist you in what you are doing including Judy Turner or did you talk about something else that would allow him to say he wasn’t interested?
What do you mean – going somewhere? I’m not going anywhere until my children’s lives as they should be are justified – and then I’ll be dead.
You’re doing fantastic. Men/fatherhood has been unlawfully discriminated against in this (alone) country and I have proved this – already. Because I drivel means absolutely nothing. If I am toxic means absolutely nothing. It isn’t about me or you or any reader or writer. The problem is about protecting our all children to the influence of male guidance. That we haven’t taught ourselves how to be effective with that guidance is comprehensively immaterial no matter what the homosexuals, or extreme feminists would demand you must believe. Like I say, I’ve got something to say that is objectively sound, logical and true. I cannot stop talking about it until those who do not recognise exactly what it is I am saying recognise the truth in what it means.
The problem with this string – and consistent to Murray’s excellent direction, is how do we put our voices together. Think of nothing else but how you can join the crowd.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 17th July 2007 @ 11:17 am
Benjamin,
My emotions are not on my sleeve, so to speak. My mind however is in a fight with itself at present.
I have been at the police station, WNZ Hederson, CYFS and the FC dropping off flyers. Also been at the council and talking as well as walking the streets outside Henderson shops giving out flyers.
Council is impressed and so are other groups.This can be very worthwhile to the men’s groups and politically. Other MPs are supportive that I didn’t know about but having Judy Turner speak may well be scaring them off, I hear. Yet, I don’t care for to me, she stays. Others had their chance.
What is freaking me out is that this is not the path I had planned.I hadn’t even wanted to get involved in charity work. All I wanted was a little social group so that I could met other single parents when I was new in Auckland. I am supposed to be getting into business. I have worked hard for the past 4 years to achieve a degree. 4 papers to go and i am sitting 2 as of Thursday.
I am getting way over my head here. Yet I believe I am capable.I just have to figure out how I will survive and still be a good mum first and foremost.
Comment by julie — Tue 17th July 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Benjamin,
We also have Paula Bennett, National MP for Waitakere on our side. She can’t make this event but would like to be a speaker for our next event.
How cool.
Yes and No about the Mad Butcher. I have been visiting Bakaries at this stage to get food donated for the refreshments.
I think one event at a time is good. Bob Harvey donated 3 of his books which are pretty awesome for door prizes as well as 6 free family passes to the swimming pool. (I didn’t know he was a writer?) I was asked if i would enter the volunteer of the year awards. I will do it if it is for the cause only. A bit of extra recongnition is always good for promotion. lol
Newspaper article came out today. Not bad. Not bad at all.
Comment by julie — Tue 17th July 2007 @ 2:38 pm
People do not stand up to challenge what they see as unjust because of what you are saying. It is hard. Yet in the end the return of your achievements are always well in excess of any daily burden watching something wilt.
You ask an interesting question though and one I struggle with on that daily basis. “How far am I prepared to go and ‘when will it end”.
To me the first important demand is how far are your prepared to go. My answer to myself in this is less than desirable – which for the function of challenge demands sacrifice – and it is without limit to – as long as I am right. IN the case of June 10 and June 11 2003 there is no doubt. The second demand is more difficult because it requires me to be vulnerable to any reponse if to meet with the first demand – which is that any and every challenge against the first demand must draw a reasnoable and objective reply – or else the first demand cannot be met. The third demand is debatable, like an option and I like you tire at my task which is long and sometime for the existence of the second demand humanly timeless. It is what do I do at its end if I make and achieve its goal.
IN your script you write to be a good mum first and foremeost – yet in mine I write that I can only be a good dad by doing what I am doing – nothing else is meritable. So the end becomes my journey.
As Bevan and others close know I need him (or the Ombudsman) if not him others who are equally and traditionally disaffected to weild my argument giving me the licence to take it into the War on Terrorism. It is the same war only we are facing it in a domestic sense with a domestic front. The longer I have to front it here the more difficult it is to replicate its principles into a global sense equalising against those injustices that have dominated the democracy as those with the power would and have had it evolve.
Bevan knows what he is doing.
Jim Bailey had the same trouble before reaching his limit which was perfect for him, in his integrity and his son. He made the decision that you haven’t yet made yet, because of where this issue can take you; you can predict by feel its tax.
Which is to say; take yourself to the level of your own commitment and don’t be troubled by others. If your energy directly requires the acknowledgment and support of others then you fit into that place and that is what is required for you to remain functional and Your doing just fine. If it doesn’t come as you want then you are not getting out of what you are doing what you need – so don’t do it.
If you don’t take more than your need if your return doesn’t require more then you cannot be wounded. So get what you need.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 17th July 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Benjamin,
Your comment was perfect. It is good to share the thoughts with those that know. And i am aware all of the people here (almost all) know what you and I are talking about.
This can easily swallow you up. I think the bigget motivator is to see others doing the hard work. Sometimes I see Jim Bagnall and his van travelling along the roads out west and i know he is still at it.
I have a feeling that I have come into this at a good time. From the hard work of others the groundwork is laid. My journey will not be as demanding as it has been for others who have been around for a long time.
It may be that I can get out after the next election is over since a men’s affairs is what is my focus and my goal.
And now that there are 2 ministers for men’s affiars I am thinking; 119 to go. lol
Comment by julie — Tue 17th July 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Jim Bagnall is our collective hero. He is the one person of us all who has rallied against this silent foe under every condition of adversity: fiscal preclusion; human suffering, and directive hatred. And when half of the population crow a greater physical health than he could hope he remains our toughest ever rooster. And its true. How many wounded dads has dragged off the streets? Who could match him in that department? How many court cases has he attended and battles drawn with family law professionals? How many arguments has he championed right or wrong and stuck to his position that men are discriminated against in the courts and that bias is right? How many? Who could match him – and who would ever want to? What an unenviable task. When this battle is over, he, as sticking it out, when others dropped back off and into their own domestic realities, versions passions for whatever another reason, stayed keeping the court staff honest, keeping the iron fired. It’s good that you have him speaking at your event and that he will be honoured in this way. I just hope half of them don’t walk out if he happens to get riled 🙂
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 18th July 2007 @ 10:42 am
Benjamin,
Your last sentence of your comment is funny. I have thought about locking the doors when Jim speaks, lol but I am thinking the nice cakes and such will be able to keep the crowd. Double lol.
He is the main attraction for many so I am very lucky. But i have heard him talk and he is as real as it gets. Males are at war with the system from the UN down. Some may get a shock but if that is what it has to take then so be it.
I just hope we get a good crowd and if not then a group that really want to listen and of course good weather.
Comment by julie — Wed 18th July 2007 @ 11:14 am