In The NZ News, Week 19, 2009
Two 15-year-old schoolboys commit suicide within a week of each other, and police are investigating whether text or internet bullying contributed to their deaths. Why don’t they investigate the more likely stressors leading young men to commit suicide at epidemic rates that are much higher than those for women? I would suggest they start with: feminist male-denigration that is spread deliberately by most media, low social value placed on men’s lives as they die on their jobs, are thrown out of their homes at women’s behest and are thrown into prison for waving at their children, and male-blaming and male-denigrating domestic violence campaigns that are allowed to perpetrate gender discrimination when similar discrimination based on race would never be tolerated because it would be clearly recognized as unfairly damaging most of those it targets.
A NZ naval officer with almost 20 years’ experience and numerous good conduct badges and service medals has essentially lost his job on the basis of convictions entered by court-martial. He committed the heinous crime of visiting a younger female who let him in and showed him to her bedroom, let him teach her to tie knots on her dressing gown cord whereupon he hugged her and tried to kiss her but did not persist when she declined. Yes, he was more senior and in a training position regarding her, and it was inappropriate for him to try it on. But how much harm was actually done? And can we afford to throw such experienced people on the scrap heap for such minor indiscretions? Now I would have thought that a reasonable thing for this woman to do if she didn’t want him to attempt romance with her would be to tell him so and ask him not to visit again. But no, if there’s a chance to wreck a man’s life then why not do it? The charges suggest that the age of consent is being interpreted upward (in this case 19) so that women don’t have to take any responsibility for their decisions and actions and any older man who reaches out to them romantically can be treated as a child molester. Women now almost occupy the place vis-Ã -vis men that white Americans used to occupy in relation to black slaves; the slaves were not to presume to interact with whites and any accusation by a white against a slave was enough evidence of guilt.
Paul Henry, host of TV1’s Breakfast show was complained about by some viewers for reading out other viewers’ comments that a Greenpeace worker, Stephanie Mills, had a moustache. When his female co-host reacted disapprovingly to his reading out the comment, he affirmed in his matter-of-fact style that there was a moustache on her and that people can say what they see. And there is no doubt that Ms Mills does sport a moustache. TVNZ upheld the complaint against Henry. Ok, so stating a clearly accurate fact about a woman’s appearance is considered unacceptable if she finds that uncomfortable. There doesn’t need to be any derogatory comment, any discriminatory stereotyping, any humiliation, any joke. It’s enough that it’s about a woman and she might not like it. On the other hand, if it’s about men TVNZ doesn’t give a damn. TVNZ sees it as quite acceptable to broadcast over and over again an “anti-violence” cake with various white men, only white men, assaulting women and children. And another production showing men, only men, causing harm to others through excessive drinking while women who drink excessively are only depicted as more vulnerable victims of men’s behaviour. So it’s ok to offend and denigrate half the population using misleading and inaccurate gender discrimination, as long as the victims of this abuse are men. But women are of a totally higher class and they must not be offended. Yeah, we’re starting to understand the rules now.
And a woman who snatched a 2-day-old baby from the maternity ward has received an easy ride in Court. The Crown isn’t seeking a jail term, the Court didn’t read out the summary of facts describing her crime, the Court has allowed name suppression and the Crown doesn’t object, and she has been granted bail throughout. The offender went to a psychiatric hospital after her offence but then was allowed to live at home with her parents. Well, that may all be quite humane and fair. But we simply would not see that kind of caring social work by the justice system for male offenders of any kind unless they are legally insane. In “The Myth of Male Power”, Warren Farrell pointed out that female offenders are much more likely than male offenders to have their behaviour attributed to circumstances, background factors or mental ill-health, and much more likely to be referred for psychiatric assessment in search of an explanation for their behaviour. The baby-snatching woman was not able to use the defence of insanity, but her offending is excused throughout the process anyway because of her claimed background problems. How many male offenders don’t have background problems that contributed to their offending? It’s time that men are shown a similar level of understanding and help in addition to any punishment, or alternatively that female offenders are treated with a similar level of retributive cruelty to what is regularly meted out to men.