MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Violence Against Men by Women TV Discussion

Filed under: General — Intrepid @ 4:57 pm Thu 18th January 2007

Dateline: Ontario, Canada
Placed by: John Dias
From: TV Ontario
Via: The Honor Network

Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

Here is a TV discussion from Canada on female violence directed at men, and has both a clear supporter of MRAs and a Mangina excusing any and all facts


  1. Thanks for this Intrepid.
    encouraging to see the feminist mangina being argued against and in the minority.

    Comment by Stephen — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 12:46 am

  2. Yes, I think Manginas are a loud & talkative minority, like their cousins. Traditional men have been historically a quiet lot, and so in fact I think this shows the real percentage of where men would fall if they feared not PC power. It isn’t a focus group, but I think it is more reflective of what we would find if we had focus groups of men and ask them these questions. The average blokes would look at Manginas and say, “You don’t speak for me, though you claim to.”

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 1:12 am

  3. Well the average kiwi bloke has got to get a bit more vocal eh ?

    Real women can see the problem . Now all we need is some dudes who are not afraid to gun the feminazi’s wrongful agruments down without any aggro.As Miss Klarke would say “bring it own .” We got a delegation of men meeting with families commission next month .It will be interesting.It must be brought into balance for the sake of all our children.

    Comment by dad4justice — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 10:17 am

  4. I am not comfortable with the term “manginga”.

    I prefer “self-emasculated eunuch”.

    Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 5:24 pm

  5. Personally, I think the magina you spoke of is MRA. I think without realising it women who want no more to do with marriage and men who want no more to do with marriage are both working together to achieve the same goal yet they don’t realise it. Or maybe you do.

    I heard Mr Blair (from England) saying on TV that there are strong families in his country. Are we the ones that stand in both your way?

    And then I think about free IVF given to females overseas and that men will soon have incublators available to them and that the scientist are discovering how to generate our cells that we don’t die.

    Personally, today, I think that marriage is becoming absolete. Imagine spending forever with one partner?

    And here are the successful businessmen and successful politions telling me that the prolbem with today’s society is that they won’t commit.

    Well, would they want to? We live in a whole different world today. Each for their own yet each dependant on the Government soon enough.

    Comment by julie — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 6:24 pm

  6. The woman in this discussion is logical and fair, but has no sense of urgency.

    David in the discussion is a Mangina on our side. He prizes egalitarian ideas before men’s rights. He paints chivalry as a male construct and thus we must be rescued from these old ideas, when for me these are already heavily influenced by effeminate ideas, and so to move even more to this egalitarian position will not solve as many problems as it does fix.

    Ian is a mangina on the other side, and found himself faced with facts, numbers, a woman and huge injustice, but still held on to his emotional egalitarian compass at all cost. Such men like Ian will never change.

    The newscaster was out of the loop, and one feels he will hopefully look into these issues and learn from the experience, though he would have to say goodbye to his job to follow where these facts will take him (unlikely).

    Walter was on top of his facts, angry, and cynical, and you felt that he sees that they are spitting into the wind with so many men suffering and no one willing to point to the underlining reasons in the media and culture.

    The facts that are talked about here & other forums are slowly getting out, but we can’t wait for slow reforms and a million or more men to suffer. Those like David feel they are getting through after decades of hard work.

    Or what is really happening the radical MRAs on the horizon are starting to worry the establishments. Their attempts to marginalized men out of any effect on their power has simply caused the gathering all the same. So they will slowly talk to the moderates and play for time and hope all will lose interest again, for since the moderates believe in only talking about injustice (and prize egalitarian ideas over men’s rights) the establsihments will have no problem in catering to the effeminate & the mangina majority’s fears of bad men for more votes.

    All fail to see men are different and that a system must choose not a egalitarian balance but a honorable balance!

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 7:01 pm

  7. Dear Intrepid,

    I have made my stand with you and yet what you are doing and what you have decided to do is all good with me. I have come to the conclusion that whatever I do will be taken over by more, should I say, sophisticated men like yourself. Educated men just waiting for a chance to prove themselves. But they can’t stand without losing their jobs. Sorry for being so cold but I have never been here alone. There are others, always was. I am happy for the so called intellegent people to take over although I will be obselete yet I will not destroy my friendships over this nor will I destroy my single parents group. That is all I will have after this. For goodness sake my studies and job are in business.

    Now, I have decided, that I am good enough as me. They don’t want to hear you for they have thier own opinions on the men’s movement. They know who you are and they know what you are about and they are so clever on world wide issues, socialism, feminism that I get pissed off. I don’t have anything to prove to you or anyone else. Not them and not you. I am getting sick of the lot of you. And I certainly will not waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on this cause for I don’t have it.

    You have my upmost respect and so does Stephen for the lengthy time you have put into MRA. Shite, if only half the groups for any cause spent so much time we would have changes.

    But I now demand, yes, demand that you talk to me and not at me. I don’t understand a word of what you just said in your last comment.

    Maybe you lowered yourself to me and feel you don’t have to anymore. I don’t know. And that is fine. I was only here to be one piece of a puzzle anyhow.

    But I have some bad news for you. The most of men that will back you up are just as plain as me.

    OK, said my peice to all who read.

    OK, Intrepid, What the hell is going on? Do you want to be like these radical feminists? No, you are for moderation. What is moderation? Well it is men and women both having the laws to protect both of them. Am I right? Is this about human rights issues? Well of course it is. Julie, you silly fool, you get so wrapped in fighting by listening as well as giving your point of view that you forget what men’s issues are about. Or do I? Isd this men’s marriage strike apart of socialism.

    Hey, Itrepid, I don’t have to fight very hard to win men over by being a female but I am now confused as to what I am fighting for.

    Can we just put all this into plain English? What is a Majina? Is he a socialist? Some of my best friends act like socialist yet they are real men.

    Comment by julie — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 8:06 pm

  8. Dear Julie,
    To keep it simple he is your, “Man who is too clinging and doesn’t give you any air and wants to do everything together(your words).

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 9:52 pm

  9. Dear intrepid,

    Oh, wow. I don’t like those men.

    Comment by julie — Fri 19th January 2007 @ 10:26 pm

  10. Did anyone visit the home page of the Web site that served the Web page featuring those videos ( You should take a look. It’s a search engine of decades of research on domestic violence by women against men. It can refute the false assertion (often made by radical feminists) that no concerns of the men’s movement are worth looking into until the violence men do to women is first curtailed. This argument — that men are abusers and aggressors as a sex — is meant to silence and subdue countervailing viewpoints, and as such it is oppressive. Oppressive to men, by silencing discussion of men’s issues, and certainly oppressive to male victims of domestic violence initiated by women.

    Most of the empirical studies at rely on the self-reports of female abusers — women who admit that they *initiated* domestic violence against a man. Think about that. If they initiated violence against a non-violent partner, this negates any justification of such actions as “self defense.” If physical violence is a more extreme domination than emotional conflict, than how can the initiation of physical violence be “self defense” in any reasonable interpretation of the term?

    Take a look when you get a chance:

    John Dias

    Comment by John Dias — Thu 1st February 2007 @ 3:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar