More Superbowl Myth
My email today to National Radio’s Nine to Noon is self-explanatory. I may make a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards organisation if the station does not correct the misinformation it has broadcast.
Hello Nine to Noon
Good on you for airing the challenge to t-shirts that appear to promote violence against women.
The woman who made the complaint referred to the notion that domestic violence against women increased after the All Blacks’ World Cup loss. There is no
basis in fact for this myth that appears to have been spread by Women’s Refuge after publicity was given to their claim that “We have heard from police
that there was an increase…” (see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10468736&ref=rss)
Some checking of facts showed there was no average increase in police call outs for domestic violence after the game. Note that Women’s Refuge did not
make any claim that there had been any increase in their own referrals after the game.
The link between domestic violence and sports losses is a feminist myth started in relation to the US Superbowl final in 1993. Although the claim was
quickly investigated and shown to be unfounded, the myth has persisted and is now still perpetuated by people who should know better.
I look forward to your station doing the responsible thing and clarifying for your listeners the misinformation provided innocently by your interviewee.
I also look forward to your future exposes of the many products and advertisements now showing demeaning and hate-promoting messages against men.
Good on you Hans,
This myth seems to pop up in all sorts of places, only the gullible would believe it though.
And to think that someone wasted a lot of money (that could have been put into something more worthy, like mens health) with a TV ad campaign to perpetuate this myth.
Comment by MikeT — Wed 7th November 2007 @ 12:02 am
Just a note,
I just saw a story on Te Karare (Maori news, it’s repeated at midnight).
I’d like to know why uniformed police officers (and being paid our tax money) are handing out DV flyers to the public on one of NZ’s city streets.
Sorry Hans about the thread-jack, I was really annoyed.
I would have thought that there was more important issues, like solving the back-log of violent crime and drugs cases in this country, let the Women’s Refuse hand their own flyers out!
Comment by MikeT — Wed 7th November 2007 @ 12:30 am
I think Hans the problem they have with this is because of the directness of challenge on the obvious conflict of interests.
This is to say that they simply are not yet ready to challenge the facts from the balanced point of view. On Sunday Chris Laidlaw had a section which canvassed this problem of whether journalists are “left” or “right”.
To build a challenge against Rugby is to directly challenge the top game. Netball here is the competitor. To spend time trying to describe this depth without thought out arguments is like jumping into the pond, not knowing how deep it is, not being able to swim and the duck to which anyone could possibly keep one afloat isn’t made of rubber.
This is to say that I do not disagree with you, but they are not ready. We have lived under this smoke of illusion for so long now. There are two issue Mike T. Gender and constiution.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 7th November 2007 @ 11:01 am
It has been a long time since I have had an unsubscribe for my writing, yet I got one today from Sunday Sunday Radio NZ National, after receiving the email I sent to Peter Dunne. I have written a letter each day of this week to policians after Helen Clark’s reshuffle and one late last week to Ruth Dyson.
I have unsubscribed Sunday yet replied to their request. They know that there is a direct and damaging fault in the constitution. Chris Laidlaw knows this because he ran a programme on it, dealing with the issue of republicanism. When he arrived at teh critical point of the debate, and I had already emailed him to tell him I was listening, the guests ducked the tough issues putting these problems into Chris termed a “pandora’s box”. I’ve had this term used on me before, in court by the prosecuting lawyer of my case, Mr.Couchman. He was arguing to the judge that he didn’t want me to introduce evidence into the Court on how the Court was discriminatory because it would open a “pandora’s box”. On both counts they are right.
What this means is that the people who run teh system in New Zealand are protecting, openly corrupted practices. They know it and it goes on and on and on. Child after child is exploited as an income gatherer in the Courts as the Judges demand that only they know best. Billions of dollars is paid to this industry where there are winners and losers in every case that a judges order has to be made: billions of dollars.
And the media run away.
Next week on Sunday I imagine Chris Laidlaw will cover in some way the crisis in Fiji. Yet all the while he will ghave sitting in his mind that he is protecting the corruptions that are rampant in New Zealand where father after father is being bullied by the Courts into accepting a lower role in value for his contribution in the domestic affairs for his children. He will know that the Care of Children Bill is a bill that protects lesbianism to have breed mitigating the need for a child to have a masculine influence preserved to its development and that this law was made improperly. Every single micro particle of every single second this knowledge should be glued to his thinking, and he will do nothing about it. He would run away fromt he truth. And he is a famous All Black. He is one of our tough men. He would report on our war heroes as if he honoured in his programme the truths that they fought for, the demands for which they lay down their lives. He knows the issues that are before us in New Zealand that are corrupt and he would turn his back. He is one of the best investigative journalists that I have heard in this country, and he would walk away from children in need.
I wonder if God can read people’s thoughts?
What annoys me about all of this is it is the absense of proper investigationinto our claims that simply raises the stakes on every occassion. These journalists by running away do not realise that they are the ones escalating the problems. They believe where they are the ones with the power to bring the issues to the attention of the public, that by not doing this they will succesfully hide the problems.
I think they think it is because stupid and uneducated people like me will eventaully turn our backs. What they don’t seem to figure out is that they are stealing children.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 8th November 2007 @ 4:23 pm
On Radio NZ national last night there was interesting discussion on Jim Mora’s panel. Reading in an overview kind of way, I think that Jim Mora might have been considered by his panelists Ms.(I think it is Linley) L Boneface and Ms.Amanda Millar as acting in a sexist fashion, and if so I say it was well deserved and just.
Jim Mora had invited to the discussion Pita Sharples. He was the last person to be included in a discussion that ordinarily is very inclusive. It is a good show and often enough the acid tongues of jourtnalists, politicians or other bearucrats are stroked in democratic freedom to entertain their caverns of disrespect. Jim hogged the questions and the two panelists as Amanda concurred to his apology, saying that the two women were left looking at eachother in suprise, as his guests had not the discussion opened for their views.
The reason why I say they would have viewed his decision as sexist was because of the discussion prior to the interview with Dr Pita Sharples.
That discussion between Linley Boneface and Amanda Millar was vicious and nasty. Amanda Millar opened up on affairs in parliament stating that only women had integrity. Using the topic matter Ms.Boneface quickly backed her up asking what the impressions and results would have been if the gender of the people in discuussion were reversed. It is sad that people who are regarded so highly that they are invited to a public platform can be excused for such idiotic dialogue. Feeling equally hostile after listening to the piece and for the argument I present below, I would have called it the counsel of morons rather than balanced to their integrity.
Both women will be naturally aware that our political system does not have any effective measure to counter against women’s violence. That means that whenever it is exercised it is a hidden condition. That means that when we are exposed to that violence no one knows that it is happenening. It is the equivalent of story ot the Emporer and his clothes where the truth could define an Empress instead.
Additionally I am certain that both of these women will accept and think it is reasonable for a woman or two women to have a child using donated semen and raising the child alone. That’s OK by them, so thats OK by the world.
It will not matter to this view that it is an active discrimination against teh child and an indirect as unlawful discrimination against fatherhood. I can say that these two women of apparent integrity will think it is OK because I believe they are both journalists. And I know, that when this condition of gender abuse was amde directly legal in 2003 that no one commented on it. Even though I was put into jail for 40 days for bringing it to the public’s attention in parlaiment. The Dominion Post wrote about me on that event as… “a man with a problem”.
Jim hogged the discussion because what it is about. The diuscussion was not about Ms.Boneface and Ms.Millar. It was about whether or not our country can justifiable own its condition of health. Whether or not we are in truth being honest. That wasn’t what was directly discussed but that’s what it means.
Yesterday the Dominion Post published the evidence out of conrtext with the law. Yet they haven’t yet published the proper argument on sovereignty. I suppose they will put me into jail before they ever publish that.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 11:04 am