The sad ignorance of some comments
I wrote a post about the UK men’s movement and how men (mostly young men) are speaking up and starting to ask for rights. Men never had any rights. They were also oppressed in society as women were and the gender roles did them no more favours than it did women.
They are not asking for the world or for women to be discriminated against but instead are asking for equality. Something that feminism is based on.
This is in reply to one of the comments. I thought it more appropriate to make it a thread of it’s own rather than turn the comments about the UK men’s movement into a New Zealand thread.
The commenter said:
I want men who are accused rapists to be forced to take the stand and be asked questions to ascertain their characters just as the rape survivor is forced to.
Men do have to take the stand. Their whole past is involved. Unlike women who don’t even have to be present for a hearing and her past is denied to be shown. Not equal treatment. IMO.
That did not happen in the Louise Nicholas rape case and we all know they were guilty and the jury might have been able to come to a different result if they could have heard the accused speak on the stand.
I don’t know if these police officers are guilty. I wasn’t there 20 years ago. Also … might? You want to change the law to make it harder for every man and boy in this country because it might get a guilty verdict? What happened to justice?
As for your touting of this latest humiliation for the already devastated rape survivor,
The thread I wrote was about men having a fair chance up against false rape accusers. It had nothing to do with rape survivors. The only thing that hurts the rape survivor is a false rape accuser. Not me for writing an article and not men who don’t want to be falsely accused.
the number of rapists that never even make it to court is a thousandfold compared to the individual cases quoted here about stupid, weak, frightened, unempowered women who always put back the process, for decades, for the right to fair treatment for those women who actually are subjected to power attacks in the areas that are most private to them.
Unless someone gave you the position of judge, jury and executioner, you can’t say all these thousandfold men who didn’t go to court are actual rapists. You have absolutely no idea and under NZ law, they are allowed a trial still.
And I can’t beleive you want to let these women off the hook who lie. They may be stupid and they may be weaklings (no morals) but they are 100% not frightened nor unempowered.
When that fairness is achieved for women at the hands of men and at the hands of society (men and women) who judge women as being always the ones to blame for dressing in fashion, hanging out the washing, leaving a window open, stepping outside their home, sleeping in their own bed alone… then I’ll have some sympathy for men.
This is a really sad and bad way to treat half the population. I seriously hope you are getting some support and even medicated if need be. This is discrimination taken to the extreme.
That will probably take as long as it takes for men to take responsibility for their own actions.
Well, no. From my heart you have a serious condition. Perfection in society is not achievable. And making that your mark to accept a whole gender has set you up to never like that gender. But in reality men are already responsible for their own actions. When have you ever seen a woman get a tougher sentence for a crime than a man? Doesn’t happen. Do men even have advocates saying, “Hey they are a victim to the Matriarchy”. Doesn’t happen. What about a victim themselves to the Patriarchy? Doesn’t happen. They don’t get the privileges women do when it comes to taking responsibility.
Pay Inequity infers women are of less value than men. Just another indication that suggests to men in general/beaters and rapists in particular that they have the right to control/destroy women and children’s lives.
This is not correct. Men and women are paid the same wage for the same job. It is against the law to discriminate over gender. In fact, it would be nice to see some proper understanding of the pay gap so that women like yourself don’t get too carried away. (see below quote)
The ruling from the Office for National Statistics is the culmination of a running row between Labour’s deputy leader and Whitehall watchdogs, who called her use of figures on the gender pay gap ‘misleading’.
It will also affect the workings of Miss Harman’s Equality Bill, as until now the minister has insisted that public sector bodies – which will have to say whether their pay scales are unfair to women – should use her way of working out the pay gap.
A report from the ONS called Presenting Gender Pay Statistics said no one measure of the pay gap was adequate or appropriate for Government bodies to use. Instead, it said three different figures should be counted.
One is Miss Harman’s favourite measure. This lumps in all workers, both full-time and part-time, and gives a pay gap of 22.5 per cent.
But this fails to take into account that because more women choose to work part-time than men, the average pay for women is artificially driven down.
In the past the ONS has favoured a figure that counts just full-time employees. This shows men earning 12.8 per cent more than women.
From now on, yesterday’s report said, both figures must be used, together with a third setting out the gap between male and female part-time workers, which is 3.5 per cent in women’s favour.
This lie detector crap is just another attack on women to keep them from seeking justice. Shame on this website for pushing for that instead of pushing for men to keep their pants zipped and to wear condoms to lower the abortion rate.
There has to be some way for police to tell if a woman is lying. Police themselves in America tape everything police do on patrol because of women accusing police of raping them to get out of a ticket or being arrested for drugs or warrants. Taxi drivers have cameras in their cars also because of the large amount of false accusations because women don’t want to pay the fare.
How you can shut your ears and eyes to what is real? Women aren’t afraid to use this as a tool and it is only going to get worse until women are held accountable for their actions.
And how can you blame men for women having abortions? What happened to my body, my choice? Are women too much like children that they can’t be trusted to have sex? Don’t you think a lot of women will be upset if you say they don’t have the power to make sensible choices and decisions?
Why is it that despite the fact that two people are involved in sex it is always the woman who takes the blame and the man who won’t accept the responsibility.
Are you saying all sex between men and women is bad for women? Women don’t take blame and men don’t take blame. Most sex between men and women is beautiful.
Any amount of generality in my comments are certainly matched and exceeded by the comments against women on your site.
You have to expect that. It is the opposite when you go on feminist sites. lol
Also, re sexual abuse by women on children always has a starting base in history by a man sexually abusing a woman.
That theory is not correct. It has been throwing some feminists into a spin because the theory isn’t matching reality. Women rape for the same reasons men rape and yes, one of those reasons is because both the women and men were victims themselves to another rapist who could have been a victim themselves to another and so on.
Also power. Both sexes are known to rape for power.
Children are a funny one. Most children are curious and often they don’t know it is wrong to touch certain areas of each other’s bodies.
The responsibility is still on men to take charge of their own natures and stop trying to invent new ways to destroy women and children and then blaming them for it.
I think a much better statement should be, “Men AND women need to take responsibility for their actions”. It is called growing up and acting morally.
What a wonderful wonderful post. Thank you Julie for being so understanding.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 20th November 2009 @ 7:27 pm
women in general need to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming evry1 else…and the courts need to stop listening to their dribble…all too easy for women to jump up and down screaming accusations and never be held accountable…and if u think im sexist and have an attitude…to fucken right i do
Comment by ford — Fri 20th November 2009 @ 8:53 pm
The author of the post that necessitated this thread, Jum, does not realise that her ideology was funded by a wealthy manipulating man intent on causing division and yet she accuses others, who disagree with her, of being the stupid ones. Typical!
Argh! She’s fucked in the head, her arse looks fat in that, her eyebrows are crooked and her broomstick was made in China. She should be embarrassed enough without opening her insulting mouth and vomiting her ignorance here.
Thank-you for defending common sense Julie.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 20th November 2009 @ 9:44 pm
New news on old feminist manipulations: Norma McCorvey (legal alias Jane Roe)
Found on these great sites: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/
here’s the link: http://www.henrymakow.com/_norma_mccorvey_leftby_richard.html
Comment by Larry — Sun 22nd November 2009 @ 9:05 am
These links are of little relevance to this post. One seems to be a fundamentalist Christian site promoting all manner of superstitions such as aliens being responsible for crop circles. The other promotes an anti-abortion stance.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 22nd November 2009 @ 9:14 am
Jum said…
Who are the “we” you refer to? You know they were guilty? Why were you not called to give evidence?
It may be a good thing you used a nom-de-plume to post. You could be rendering yourself liable to legal action if you consistantly spread smear and inuendo of this sort under your real name.
Jum said…
Do you proof read? This is the sort of gobbledigook one creates when they engage in extreme idealogical gymnastics.
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll take responsibility for what other men do to women when YOU take responsibility for the vast majority of child abuse which is perpetrated by women. Note that women abuse those who are utterly defenseless. There are no shortage of services to help women escape circumstances of abuse. The victims of women are denied utterly.
Jum said…
You are actually equating the “pay gap” with the murder and abuse of women and children? For the record women are perpetrators of eighty percent of parental child abuse and more than two thirds of all child abuse.
(At this point it should be painfully clear even to me that Jum is a complete whacker. Nevertheless.)
Women are of less value than men? This may be true to employers given womens’ lower productivity. But it is also true that ninety five percent of workplace death and injury is male. Womens’ work may be “less valued” – though I highly doubt it – than mens but mens lives and physical wellbeing are nowhere near as important as those of women.
How do you reconcile the gender pay gap, which is 1.2% when hourly rates of pay are examined, with the reality that women control eighty percent of discretionary spending in western countries? I would have thought that privilege was spending the filthy lucre rather than having to work ones arse off to earn it.
Men earn. Women spend. Anyone doubting this merely needs to count the gender specific retail outlets or, indeed, the people present in any shopping precinct.
Jum said…
That old cannard again? Men must “keep their pants zipped” and “wear condoms”. Those two are the only methods of contraception or pre-emptive control over their reproductive destiny which are available to men. Women have more than twenty including simply dumping their unwanted child without repercussion. Women can offload their responsibilities on a whim. Men go to prison for not fulfilling theirs.
And what’s this about women taking the blame in all matters sexual? You surely jest. Women rape little boys and then collect child support from their victims. Thats how inequitable our laws are where sex and reproduction are concerned. Every English speaking nation does this. Women walk away from sexual offences against kids with the tap of a feather. In my country we treat the female rapist as a victim¹ and then set them all free.
The reality is that in an instance of sexual impropriety any woman involved is a default victim. Even if she is the perpetrator. Even if she is the only adult in the exchange. The shame of that attitude is the marginalisation of so many genuine victims.
Jum said…
The generality of your comments concerns me not. The shallow ignorance demonstrated is a different matter as we shall see.
Jum said…
Absolutely false assertion. You have no possible factual basis for this claim. While there is significant evidence that more than half the men convicted of raping women or girls were previously molested by women² there is NO corresponding research suggesting anything like this for female perpetrators. A couple of psychologists have made suggestions in recent times that many female perps may also be victims but there is no evidentiary basis for their claims. Furthermore fewer female than male perpetrators act in concert with others. Women do not sexually abuse because some man made them do it. Women commit a quarter of the offences and are – given the greater male propensity to commit multiple offences – probably a third of the perpetrators.
You assertion here is a dangerous deceit.
Ten percent of female perpetrators are teachers whilst among male perpetrators teachers are fewer than one percent. Even allowing for the greater male commission overall it is still three times more likely that a teacher who molests a student will be female. In a school a boy is twice as likely as a girl to be the victim of sexual abuse by an adult. Outside the home and extended family the most likely victim is a boy rather than a girl and the boy is just as likely to be abused by either gender.
Our scrutiny is wrong and puts our children at risk. YOU and others like you put our children at risk. YOU would turn a blind eye to abuse going on under your own nose because of your prejudices. While a woman rapes a child you will be busy all the while looking for the evil male pulling her strings.
As a survivor of child sexual abuse by a woman I find your assertion that some male svengali was making her do it to be vile in the extreme.
HOW DARE YOU!
=========================================
1. The woman in this story anally penetrated a fourteen year old boy and the judge took pity on HER.
2. 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979), 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993) and 75% (Clarke, 2003)
Comment by gwallan — Mon 23rd November 2009 @ 1:20 am
Beautiful comment.
Comment by julie — Mon 23rd November 2009 @ 10:21 am
Ohhh julie, it’s more a thing of anger than a thing of beauty.
If you’ve never heard the name Sandra Cantu I’d suggest looking it up. This little girl was drugged, sexually assaulted, killed, stuffed in a suitcase and thrown in a dam. By a woman.
All the while this little girl was missing everybody, and I mean everybody, was looking for a man. The woman who did the deed had actually been linked with another missing little girl, in the same trailer park, only a couple of months earlier. Still they sought an man.
Sandra Cantu is quite possibly dead because of a fundamental prejudice in our communities. Individuals such as Jum advocate to buttress these prejudices. She and others like her are very dangerous individuals indeed.
Comment by gwallan — Mon 23rd November 2009 @ 5:49 pm
I know. But at the same time I wanted to say something nice to you because you handled her well, (I know she has a black heart) but didn’t know what words to write. Beautiful means a few things to me.
I read about it a few days ago. I too feel angry.
I agree
Comment by julie — Mon 23rd November 2009 @ 9:59 pm
I hope nobody minds my posting this here. It’s White Ribbon Day over Aus way. I needed to cry out at the smug bastards sponsoring this deceit but I doubt any of the media or sites will publish my words. I just want it in the public domain at least somewhere.
Comment by gwallan — Thu 26th November 2009 @ 2:25 am
Hans, Your assumptions are wrong. Those sites I mentioned put forward writers who give much needed exposure to Zionism. The rest I ignore (you can too). After that I make my own mind up rather than getting news from TV trash. Christian Fundamentalism (very un-Christian) is synonymous with Zionism / Judaism. Feminism is one of the stated tools from communist Russia to destroy family and marriage.
Comment by Larry — Thu 26th November 2009 @ 9:04 am
Sorry if I got it wrong Larry, but I looked through both sites and couldn’t find anything of relevance. It would be great if you cut and pasted the excerpts here.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th November 2009 @ 11:35 am
I doubt very much that anyone would mind you posting that here; it’s very relevant. We are also having the White Ribbon Campaign, with posters up especially at government departments, mainly paid for by our government through the so-called Families Commission. Our posters show a man looking staunch with folded arms saying “Mate, show you’re against violence towards women”. I now ask people if it would be ok to show posters with a Maori man saying “Whanau, show you’re against violence towards white people”, and if it would not be ok to show such racism towards Maori then how is it ok to show such sexism towards men?
I would support a campaign to show opposition towards interpersonal violence, but not one that treats violence towards men as not important enough to mention, especially as men are by far the most frequent victims of violent crime in NZ and most other countries.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th November 2009 @ 11:44 am
Where are [names removed by moderator at request of children], these are my kids.
Comment by Hadi — Fri 18th December 2009 @ 7:17 pm
im not your kid ok
Comment by emmah — Fri 18th December 2009 @ 7:40 pm
It would be good to hear thoughts on this recent news.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/assault-and-homicide/news/article.cfm?c_id=124&objectid=10620397
Comment by onewomanDV — Fri 15th January 2010 @ 5:51 pm
I’m surprised by two things:
1. What sort of fool would assume that any woman would be arrested and charged for hitting a man?
2. If the woman was really the victim and not the perpetrator then why on Earth did she try to prevent him from leaving the house? How many victims try to prevent the supposed perpetrator from leaving the crime scene?
I suspect that the woman was probably lying and that Judge Tony Couch and the Police are incompetent idiots with sh!t for brains.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 15th January 2010 @ 8:58 pm
I think it is really sad. My first impression is of 2 people drunk. It doesn’t say whether she was but I think having a judge say he could visit if invited makes a statement. The judge wouldn’t have said that if the female wanted him to stay away for good.
I also get the impression he said guilty to save the relationship. He wouldn’t get invited around if he didn’t.
Anyways, again … really sad! NZ has a real problem with alcohol and drugs and it makes for unhealthy relationships IMO. 😉
Comment by julie — Fri 15th January 2010 @ 11:48 pm
Typical he said/she said situation with the now standard outcome – the woman will always be viewed as more honest than the man. There appears to have been no visible or actual injuries to either party else it would have been entered as evidence.
If Jordan Cairns was actually the victim he would not be unusual at all. Murray Strauss has reported that a quarter of male vitims of partner abuse are themselves arrested if they try to report. In the US men have been arrested in hospital beds while recovering from serious injury resulting from their partners’ attacks. Men permanently confined to wheelchairs have been arrested.
In Australia the individuals pushing the feminised agenda on intimate partner abuse also maintain that any male who says he’s a victim should be disbelieved and actually considered a perpetrator instead. They apply the same attitude towards those who advocate for male victims. This is even being taught to future welfare workers in the state of Victoria. Extraodinarily prejudicial.
Seriously if I was trying to make it look like I’d been assaulted there are far more viable ways. Self infliction would top the list. There is no shortage of women who have done the same to buttress allegations of abuse or rape.
Why wasn’t he arrested for car theft?
Intersting that he is described as a “man”. He’s eighteen. He’s a father. This is another element in a continuing pattern. The language surrounding these instances will always present a male as a full blown adult. Their status as parents is ignored. Women will always, if in any way possible, be described in more diminutive terms such as “girl” or “young woman”. If they are mothers this will be stated and often used to mitigate any punishment. While no detail is given I have a suspicion that the woman concerned is older than he. I’d love to know how old she was when their child was conceived. He was fifteen at most.
Jordan appears to have been in the news previously…
More Kiwi boys becoming dads
F&C Worker Defends Teen Fatherhood in Media
Comment by gwallan — Sat 16th January 2010 @ 1:12 am
Reality check people.
The article says the man was drunk, took her car keys, and made to leave. Of course she’s going to try to stop him leaving the house.
Why wasn’t he arrested for car theft? – I hardly think police would have thought that was important in the circumstances. I doubt the average person would either.
I would have thought referring to Jordan as “a man” is regarded as perfectly neutral and accurate. I find your remark, gwallan, about women being referred to as “girl” or “young woman” interesting but would need to see a bit of proof before I agreed with you.
And finally: the man was drunk!! Who would fault the police for trusting the woman’s account of the situation more, if she was a sober witness!! The article did not state whether she had been drinking or not but one would have thought it was a rather salient point if she had been drinking, and that the newspaper would jump on this? (Well, the answer to that from your end would be that the media has a vested interest in painting women in a favourable light and therefore would deliberately leave that detail out. My counter-argument would be that the NZ media are notorious shit-stirrers and love a good drunken argument – and therefore have no reason to omit that detail).
My point is this: that if you read every news story, every situation, with a so-called “anti-feminist” gloss over your eyes, there is nothing that won’t seem like the man is getting a rough deal. Such a view is not balanced and leads to the nit-picking that has just been conducted in the previous several posts.
I welcome a rebuttal.
Comment by Jade — Sat 16th January 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Fundamental to this situation is that authorities ALWAYS default to believing a woman over a man unless there is incontravertible and inarguable proof to the contrary. This plays out in virtually every situation where conflict occurs between male and female. There are literally tens of thousands of innocent men in prison throughout the western world because of this prejudice.
What the media does is largely irrelevant. Authorities “preferred” her version of events. This is a fundamental and unacceptable prejudice.
I find it interesting that you only addressed the more subjective points I raised. You have nothing to say about the very salient issues I mention in my first several paragraphs? You say my position is “not balanced”? I would assert that the position of governments and relevant authorities such as police, judiciary and support services towards male victims of abuse is not merely unbalanced, it is actually bigotted. As I said earlier in this thread it’s a prejudice that kills. And it’s a prejudice created and fostered by feminism.
I have been involved in advocacy for male victims of abuse, primarily of the sexual variety for nearly a decade. I have had several friends and acquaintances who are no longer with us because those systems are not willing to believe or help male victims. And yet we are continually exhorted to “believe the woman”. If you don’t see the imbalances in the way we currently do things I would suggest you look to your own prejudices.
Comment by gwallan — Sat 16th January 2010 @ 7:54 pm
I would imagine that the car probably belongs to both parties although ownership is listed under her name. It’s fairly common. They’ve been in a relationship long enough to make one child although there is no age given for that child.
Julie’s impression seems to me to be more likely of what transpired. You’re right about there being no evidence of her drinking. In fact it appears that the news item listed none of his evidence whatsoever but rather the Police’s preferred version which is her version.
I doubt there would have been any violence if she had obliged the apparently drunk and annoyed partner and simply slept on the couch. It doesn’t seem plausible that she tried to remove a blanket from their bed so she could sleep on the couch. I imagine that much more went on than has been reported.
I can’t imagine how he could force a fist to be made by her whereby he could then force her to punch him repeatedly in the face. Surely her hand would have been open and not closed in a fist. I think she’s lying about much of what really transpired.
Why did she have her car keys in her hand if not for deliberately keeping them from him? If a drunk, violent partner had just assaulted you and wanted to take the family car, even if it is just in your name, then the right thing to do would have been to call the Police rather than get in to another violent struggle. She didn’t give the impression of being an scared victim of a violent drunk.
I agree with Julie in that they’ve probably been violent towards each other and the Police has just chosen sides.
It seems to me that it’s just more male/perpetrator – female/victim bullsh!t. They were probably both the perpetrator and the victim of each other. I feel sorry for their poor kid.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 16th January 2010 @ 8:27 pm
An excellent post Julie.
A belated Happy New Year my dear.
Comment by amfortas — Sat 16th January 2010 @ 10:07 pm
Gwallan, you still have not addressed the fact that the man in this case was under the influence of alcohol (and the female appears not to have been). What do you think about this?
Comment by Jade — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 10:52 am
Jade, the woman in this case would not have been tested for alcohol. And Gwallan didn’t say anything about the alcohol, I did. We were asked for our thoughts.
Anyhoo, Gwallan is terrific in his work. I don’t blame you for wanting to discuss things with him. You could try and lift your game up to his level. Maybe bring some information from woman’s studies. 🙂
Comment by julie — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 11:07 am
Dear onewomanDV,
I tried to write a comment on your site but you can’t. Something is wrong with the software.
Comment by julie — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 11:12 am
@Jade…
As I have said more than once the critical factor is that gender determines who is believed and who is assumed by default to be in the wrong. This instance follows that same pattern. It is a well established pattern in western nations. As Erin Pizzey has written that the nastiest, most foul mouthed woman can rubbish the nicest, most gentle man alive and everybody will believe the woman. She isn’t wrong.
The likelihood is that both were drinking. We differ only in an assumption. You assume she was not with as little an evidentiary basis as I. Drinking is NOT illegal. Abuse is. Her description and claims simply don’t add up.
The beliefs we as individuals apply to these specific circumstances do not matter. What police and courts do, however, matters a great deal. Your haranguing of myself over trivial matters does not alter the fact that assumptions have been made by those authorities and that gender is the basis of those assumptions. The default to always believing the woman is a matter of pure bigotry.
I’ve known too many male victims who have suicided, overdosed, succumbed to disease and even starvation(which was where I was headed a decade ago). These things happen BECAUSE of the default disbelief of male victims. Male victims report at a rate one twentieth that of female victims. This occurs because they know they won’t be heard and they know they won’t be believed. Of those who do actually report only about one percent are taken seriously. For some of them it’s a death sentence.
Comment by gwallan — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 11:52 am
Actually, Gwallan, it was Doris Lessing, the famous British early feminist author, not Erin Pizzey, who said at the Edinburgh Book Festival, in August, 2001:
“I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed.”
She went on to point out-
“The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests …”
Comment by amfortas — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Thankyou squire. As I wrote that I realised I may have had the source wrong. I foolishly persisted.
Comment by gwallan — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 12:25 pm
We help each other, Gwallen, and respectfully.
🙂
Comment by amfortas — Sun 17th January 2010 @ 2:23 pm
There is a lot of uninformed speculation in this thread.
The fact is that Jordan chose to plead guilty.
As he is yet to be sentenced, I don’t think continued discussion of this case is appropriate, so I am closing the comments here.
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 8th February 2010 @ 2:00 pm