In The News To Week 20, 2009 (Part One)
You never have to wait long for news stories that highlight the misandry that has infected our belief system after decades of feminist propaganda. Although I only come across a small proportion of media sources, I need to break this week’s exposÃ© into two posts and that doesn’t even include other glaring examples already submitted here by others. It’s a positive sign that journalists are drawing attention to some of these examples even though they seldom highlight the underlying gender issues. For this lot though I’ll start with some celebrations of men’s qualities.
A man from NZ received a bravery commendation from London police after he confronted and fought three large thugs who were assaulting and robbing a woman. Some men (and a fast increasing number of women) are criminal thugs but most men are socially responsible. We seldom hear any recognition from feminists concerning men’s bravery and positive contribution to society. This man was violent but his reason was seen as justified because the violence was in the service of a woman. If it had been a male victim that this man was trying to rescue he would have been at some risk of being charged with assault himself, with an admonishment for taking the law into his own hands. Absolutist anti-violence calls (largely fuelled by feminist ideas) have been used by successive governments to remove the right of citizens to manage unacceptable behaviour in our community, increasingly reserving any such rights for agents of the state. The Bradford law was but another example of this. Men in general are now treated by the state as incompetent to make judgement calls about intervening and providing natural consequences. Nevertheless, they will still be blamed and held accountable for the now uncontrolled behaviour of their children and even other adults in their community.
Meanwhile, an Invercargill man stopped to fight off two large dogs that were attacking an elderly man, probably saving the victim’s life. We certainly won’t hear the feminists mentioning this hero when they issue their male-denigrating insults next Fathers Day. They might instead quip that the dogs probably belonged to a male who caused the problem in the first place. And anyway, it was only a man who was being mauled so who cares? But I thought it important to mention a few of our many male heroes here, and to celebrate men’s strength, bravery and sense of social responsibility.
Peter Siddell DCNZM, acclaimed NZ artist is dying of a brain tumour and his dying wish is to live long enough to celebrate with his wife their 50th wedding anniversary. Let’s acknowledge this man’s commitment to his partner and celebrate men’s huge capacity for enduring bonding and loyalty.
Women Are OK on P
The former partner of a Waikato sportswoman was convicted of assaulting her. Later in the news story it was mentioned that he came into the room finding her smoking P, and that according to him she used it daily and this had strained their relationship. He claimed that on this occasion he threatened to leave her and she then attacked him, whereupon he pushed her away. Well the way I see it, it was unacceptable for this man to retaliate against the woman in the way alleged, and he deserves to face legal consequences for doing so. He was perhaps foolish in Court to minimize the extent of his reaction in the face of medical evidence. However, there is no mention of the woman facing charges for using P, and it seems surprising for the judge to come to her defence in doubting that she used P regularly. Why did the police not prosecute her? Someone who smokes P at lunchtime around her partner despite his disapproval is not likely to be an occasional experimenter. Imagine if the gender roles had been reversed. Woman finds her partner smoking P, threatens to leave him whereupon he physically attacks her, she retaliates in anger and somewhat excessively causing him minor scratches and bruises. What’s the bet that the Court would have concluded that the P-addled male was reasonably seen by his partner as presenting a serious threat and that her retaliatory attack was therefore justified as self-defence? But instead the use of P by a woman is treated by the Court as trivial with no recognition that P can make women violent, unpredictable and dangerous just as it does men.
I note that the sentencing in this case was supposed to have happened last Friday but I have found no news of it.
Women Are Saints On Alcohol Too
The ALAC ads still depict only men who drink too much causing harm to others, while women who drink too much are only shown as becoming easier victims for men to harm. So surely this story can’t be true, nor all the other ones about women who kill and maim after drinking too much. It’s outrageous to suggest that women could do any harm! The Ministry of Women’s Affairs should do something about such news being perpetrated through our media and allow only news consistent with ALAC’s male-hating propaganda.
And what about this example of minimizing and justifying female violence? The prostitute stabs her boyfriend nine times to death in a premeditated fit of anger. The news coverage, also in this story, bends over backwards to give her side of the story, blames the male victim in various ways for “pushing her over the edge”, reports her allegations as fact even though his death means there can be no corroborating evidence (e.g. that she turned him down for sex and he then insulted her, and that most of her stabs were in self-defence), and most of the articles fail to mention that the Crown forensic evidence (see here also) was not consistent with her version, (e.g. the evidence suggested that she brought the knife in her handbag to his apartment, that she stabbed him in the chest while he was in the shower, this being the fatal wound, then eight more times in the hallway including in the back and then while he was lying on his back). The offender’s supporters in the gallery are mentioned, and one article aired the murderer’s mother’s positive description of her. Note the language used by the offender (“I didn’t want it to happen”) and by others (“It was a tragedy that shouldn’t have happened”) avoided mentioning her responsibility for her actions, instead implying that the events simply “happened” as if by magic. Other articles gave detailed accounts of the defence lawyer’s claims and the evidence of a psychiatrist who was portrayed as blaming the murderer’s father because she had apparently recovered some memories about him abusing her as a child. Strange isn’t it that when a man offends violently against a woman the media tend to emphasize the sordid horror of the crime, the suffering of the victim and victim’s family and so forth. But a woman who murders a man becomes a heroine whose own minimizing account is often given credibility, her personal suffering and vulnerable humanity explored in detail. And in this case the Crown had not thought about any minimum non-parole period so sentencing was deferred. Were the Crown lawyers taken by surprise that a woman would actually be convicted? At sentencing, which will be interesting, her diagnosis of personality disorder may well be seen as reducing her cupibility and dangerousness whereas for any male offender a diagnosis of personality disorder will be seen as increasing his dangerousness and therefore the need for a longer sentence. When sentenced perhaps we’ll see this murderer interviewed in women’s magazines as the brave woman who wouldn’t put up with a man’s infidelity.
Rights Without Responsibility
This woman though estranged from her fraudster husband is allowed to continue to enjoy his ill-gotten gains. While all his other property is being seized by the Solicitor-General, the Court made special provision for his ex-partner of unspecified duration to keep a house with all chattels, to continue to receive rental income from two of his properties, to use the car he bought with stolen money and to have another one bought for her when it is sold. Nice work if you can get it! But you can be sure no man would ever be shown such consideration. You would hardly expect to be able to keep the car your partner stole whether you knew this or not. And how likely is it that this woman did not have some idea that her partner was involved in illegal dealings? But for women, well, the rules are easily bent. It’s a strange chivalry that persists, seeing women as owed a living and entitled to maintain their standard of living in ways that men are not. As George Orwell said, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.