Greg Meads and the Partial Defence of Provocation
Greg Meads killed his wife by shooting her at close range and he has now been convicted of murder. His action was no more acceptable in a civilized society than a wife similarly killing her husband, and Mr Meads deserves appropriate justice. However, the case is relevant to the men’s movement for at least two reasons. Firstly, the story has been used by media as a feminist propaganda device, perpetrating unbalanced claims about domestic violence and painting Mr Meads as a controlling male who subjected his wife and family to past violence. Secondly, under previous legislation this case may have involved a successful partial defence of provocation that would have reduced the conviction to that for manslaughter.
The portrayal, by relatives of the deceased wife, of Mr Meads as a violent patriarch may or may not be accurate. Much was made of his expectation that at dinnertime the family should not drown out the television he liked to watch, presumably the news. (Of course, any such expectation of his family by a hard-working man is totally outrageous…) An alleged previous serious assault by Mr Meads was said to be due to his belief, on the basis of text messages and pictures on her phone, that his wife was being unfaithful. The implication in the news stories was that it was just paranoia on Mr Meads’ part, just more of his controlling behaviour. It seems that men should never be suspicious of their wives or look at their text messages (but when women do it to their husbands that’s justified). The issue of his wife’s possible unfaithfulness was treated in the news stories as irrelevant, as though it had no bearing on Mr Meads’ response to it. Further, one would have thought that if he had done a “real number” on his wife’s face including breaking her nose, crushing her larynx and causing her to bleed from the ears, there might be some medical evidence to support this. (Addendum 26/11/10: But see comment from David White in comments below informing us that relevant medical evidence exists but was ruled inadmissible in the trial.) Mrs Meads’ 18-year-old who grew up from the age of 4 years with Meads as her stepfather “could never recall a continued period of abuse from Meads towards (her) mother” but now decided that her mum must have been hiding this. She did however recall Meads calling his wife “a dirty effing slut”, but she did not comment on the accuracy or otherwise of his description, as though that also had no bearing on the matter. Funny though, if one were to criticize the stepdaughter for describing Meads as leaving others to do his work, as “cold and calculated”, and as a “tight-arse”, she would likely respond that her comments were true and therefore justified.
How ethical is it for news media to parrot unsubstantiated slurs against someone, with no apparent effort to check the validity of the allegations and not even any hint of cautious questioning or tentative wording about them? The fact that the target of those allegations would find it very difficult to mount defamation proceedings against the news media (because he is in prison and already has the public against him) does not make such targeting any more ethical. And how often do we ever see the news media give the same coverage to character criticisms about women who murder their husbands? On the contrary, nearly all such cases are exploited to spread more anti-male propaganda, giving voice only to the murdering woman’s allies who paint her as a nice person and a poor victim who was simply defending herself against alleged previous and possible future (but not imminent) abuse.
Possibly even less ethical, due to greater social damage caused, is giving voice to individuals’ uninformed claims about domestic violence generally. Detective Sergeant Rob Carpinter was quoted as urging anyone suffering from family violence to “seek help”, implying that it had been proven that Mrs Meads had been suffering from family violence (more than she had been committing it). He also referred to “partner agencies” with whom the police work closely concerning domestic violence. Well, police sure aren’t working with or listening to any men’s or fathers’ agency, so the only “partner agencies” will be feminist, male-denigrating groups. This is essentially an admission by the policeman that our police force works in gender-biased ways and has been captured by feminist politics.
Kerre Woodham bemoaned the fact that the alleged beating that crushed the wife’s larynx (no mention of the broken nose here) was not put before the jury during the trial. Well Ms Woodham, perhaps the decision not to introduce that issue was made by the prosecution because any such allegation if made during trial would be subject to close scrutiny and that process may well have caused the jury to gain a less favourable perspective on Mrs Meads’ behaviour. (Addendum 26/11/10: Please note that David White in comments below informed us that relevant evidence had been offered by the prosecution but was ruled inadmissible. This does not however make Kerre Woodham’s opinion any more intelligent. A fundamental principle of our justice process is that the prosecution must convince the jury of the crime under consideration, not prejudice the jury’s view of the defendant with past allegations or convictions. Otherwise, anyone with past convictions is likely to be presumed guilty of any new allegation whether or not that new particular guilt has been proven.)
Mrs Meads’ father was quoted as saying “I think there’s some ludicrous number of women being killed by the husband or partner and Helen was one of them”, and this was followed by another quote from Detective Sergeant Carpinter telling us that “on average, a woman was killed by her partner or ex-partner every five weeks in New Zealand”. Well, yes, that’s a very bad thing though probably not quite the “ludicrous number” Mrs Meads’ father imagined, but why were dead female partners the only ones thought worth mentioning? A man is killed by his partner or ex-partner about every twelve weeks; is that frequency so much lower that domestic killing should be portrayed as though men never suffer from it? Is that level of killing not ludicrous, or are male victims totally ignored because of their gender? In comparison, suicide is usually portrayed as affecting both genders even though men are driven to true suicide much more often than are women and the gender difference in suicide is greater than that in partner killing.
The partial defence of provocation was recently removed from our law on the claim that it rewarded a loss of self-control. This policy of course denies the strength of emotions and the reality that under certain levels of provocation any average person would tend to reduce conscious choice and judgement over behaviour. When the partial defence of provocation was removed we were assured that provocation could be taken into account as an ameliorating factor in sentencing. Several sources of provocation appeared to be relevant in Mr Meads case. Firstly, there had been a history of behaviour and texting by Mrs Meads that led Greg Meads to believe she was having sex with another or others. Secondly, leading up to the killing Mrs Meads was said to have been going out all night and coming home in the morning. That seems somewhat provocative. Thirdly, around the time of the killing Greg Meads had discovered many more troubling texts on her phone concerning her activities and plans. For example, one text read:
“I am sweet. It may take some time but he’s going down. When I’m finished he will be f***** I’m in the best mood. When are you in Rotorua? When are you back ?”
“Make sure you clean the house out. Just leave him with his clothes in a pile on the floor.”
To me, texts like that are downright threatening. They may imply a threat to Mr Meads’ property, but their meaning could extend to include physical or lethal violence. To describe such texts as provocative would be an understatement. Fourthly, according to Mr Meads’ father the most significant provocation was that Mrs Meads was planning to take their daughter away. Many fathers will immediately recognize the devastating loss Mr Meads will have felt when faced with losing his day-to-day relationship with his daughter, and the terrible fear that his wife would try and would be allowed to shut him out of his daughter’s life. Perhaps Mrs Meads’ texts showed her plotting to do just that.
The provocation involved in the circumstances described above will have been further heightened for any man aware of misandrist law that will affect him following separation, e.g.
– convenient definitions of “relationship property” that essentially legalize theft by women of men’s assets,
– protection orders that require no evidence beyond hollow allegations in order to severely damage fathers’ relationships with their children,
– frequent legal collusion with mothers who seek in other ways to shut fathers out such as by moving the children far away, and
– the bounty paid by the State through so-called “child support” and through the DPB to mothers who limit and degrade the relationship between children and fathers by not agreeing to shared care.
It is clear from other news stories that violent women continue to claim provocation in order to justify their offending, reframing such provocation as necessary self-defence even when she has carefully planned and carried out an attack or murder as the man takes a shower, lies sleeping in bed or attempts to get away from her. It is also clear from sentencing that uncorroborated claims of such provocation are strongly reflected in relatively low sentences for violent women. Under any reckoning Greg Meads’ behaviour was affected by provocation, but we shall see to what extent if any this will be considered in his sentencing.
Thanks Hans for writing this.
It further validates the decision I made some time ago to NOT get romantically involved with any woman in NZ. That’s not to say there aren’t goodhearted women in NZ. it’s just that they can switch at any moment and then have the full force of feminist misandric system behind them fully committed to crushing you for no other reasoin than the fact that you’re male.
Too bad. NZ’s loss.
True, true, true. It’s about time for men, husbands, brothers and all of our male friends around the world to start fighting for their rights. Wake up, planet earth. Women are destroying you.
another woman not willing to accept her part in failing the kid… kid “only saw the father a handful of times”.. why is that??
I agree Karan
She said her son routinely breached her 6.30pm curfew to be back at their home, which is smoke-free and smack-free. “I let him take the cellphone so we can keep in touch but sometimes he’s out until 11 or 12 at night. The other night it was even later.”
This dopey woman does realise that she is the parent here doesnt she???
What sort of plonker allows an 11 year old to be out till 11 or 12.???
It boggles the mind
Is this is another case where the state is financially propping up someone to be a parent and having no checks and balances to ensure they are actually up to the job.
I dont think a cell phone is a substitute for parenting. And then asking for the community to help her sort out her wayward son! It makes my blood boil, how would she feel if “the community” decided to sort out her wayward parenting for a start I wonder if that would get the message across.
The result of two issues, firstly the provision of the DPB to encourage sole parenthood and particularly children without the strength of a father’s guidance, and secondly the anti-smacking, anti-parental authority law that now reduces the confidence of many parents in their role.
There’s also been the decades long feminist inculcation of folks to demean and marginalize all fathers, so that women can have the role of parenting all to themselves.
That’s men’s ‘glass ceiling’ in my view.
I was at the trial of Greg Meads as a close family friend of Helen’s. This article is completely hypocritical in that it slams the media for speculation and making assumptions about the relationship between Helen and Greg, and yet does the same thing.
I agree that the media often speculates in order to get the best stories; however, the issue of Helen’s death was never about whether she was having an affair or going to “clean him out” – for one, they had a prenup, and secondly, neither of these things are crimes punishable by murder. It was also not about whether men are overlooked in our society and whether women are given an advantage. Greg Meads was convicted for murder, and Helen Meads did not force him to pull the trigger.
Helen was a wonderful person and was extremely loved, and she is missed every day. To read an article that defends the person who took her life is nothing less than painful.
My condolences for your loss.
Might I just say that if just a couple of the things reported in the media are true (cleaning him out, he will be f****d or taking their daughter), many here will understand (but not condone) what happened. A lot of us have been through the same sort of treatment.
What I have the greatest difficulty with is that while Greg Meads was found guilty of murder, at the same time we had a woman in Auckland who executed her husband with a shotgun found guilty of manslaughter.
Little wonder men here have no faith in the statistics that are rammed down our throats. To many female murderers have their charges downgraded for next to no logical reason.
My sincere condolences for your loss. I acknowledge the esteem and love you held for Helen, I understand the pain you might feel reading any commentary and I apologize for any insensitivity I may have shown in my political analysis of this tragic case.
In no way do I or did I condone Greg Meads’ violence, or indeed suggest that homicide is an acceptable response. I did not seek to defend Greg Meads or his actions. From the information publicly available I did seek to glean some understanding of his responses. Understanding a human behaviour is not the same as condoning it. I sought also to comment on gender political matters relevant to the case and its reporting.
I don’t agree that my posting was hypocritical. I am not a journalist and I am not paid for journalism but on a topic such as this I can rely only on the information journalists provide. I would not be granted access to the places and people that journalists can by dint of their occupation and the ethics they are presumed to uphold. I am not obliged to check the journalists’ sources, the accuracy of what they report or to seek a counter-balancing viewpoint; those responsibilities were for the journalists. I believe that my post was clear in its sources and in distinguishing between information from those sources and any interpretation I made thereof. I believe I remained equivocal about matters where appropriate.
You stated “the issue of Helen’s death was never about whether she was having an affair or going to “clean him out” “. Are you suggesting that the circumstances confronting Greg Meads had no relevance to his violent reaction(s)? According to the reports, he was led to believe that an imminent separation was to be amicable and respectful but the texts then gave a very different picture of malevolence behind his back. If there was a prenuptial agreement as you state, then the content of the texts certainly didn’t reflect any commitment to the spirit of any such agreement. And most men realize that prenuptial agreements are often not worth the paper they’re written on; feminist-captured jurisprudence will readily overturn them when they are seen to disadvantage the woman’s interests.
As you highlight, Greg Meads was convicted of murder. But under previous legislation that recognized human frailty he may have been convicted of manslaughter, an option that was not available to his jury. If provocation is accepted as relevant in this case and if the assurances given by lawmakers were genuine when they repealed the partial defence of provocation, then we might expect such provocation to be reflected in sentencing. We shall wait and see.
Again, I extend my sympathy to you and others who have suffered this tragic loss.
Check out the lightness of the sentence passed on this NZ woman here.
Ask yourself how much prison time would a guy get for such a horrendous assault AND would he get paroled after only a third of the sentence?
For this vicious assault the offending woman got less than half the maximum jail time WITH PAROLE.
The ‘pussy pass’ as young Men’s Rights Activists such as at The Spearhead decry.
Actually, Skeptic, that expression predates The Spearhead by many years.
Gwallan, the beauty of this site is that you don’t need truth. What ever happens here creates a reaction out there. It’s quite beautiful really and some good stuff is on the cards. 🙂
That expression does predate the younger guys who frequent The Spearhead website by some years.
I only wish to point out how the idea of female sentencing privelige (coloquially known as the pussy pass) is now taking hold amongst a newer generation of men.
To me that’s an encouraging sign that there lots of young blood coming into the MRA movement to invigotrate the movement even further.
These young guys, unlike many men of my generation when we were their age, are under absolutely no illusions about the corrupt and thoroughly defunct nature of feminism.
To which site are you referring julie?
Menz Gwallan. It’s an anti feminist political site and well watched as such. 😉
AND to add, 😉 …… young men follow role models as do young women. Sometimes it’s a biker gang which we have plenty of, sometimes it’s Black Power or The Mongrel Mob, or(popular at the moment) it’s the Killer Bees. NZ judges have stated when gangsters enter their court that the gang was a better family than their own family.
Likewise young men look online for a community to be a part of and come across older men who have been shafted in the family court, who have lost their children and are treated as a wallet, plus men paying for a child that isn’t theirs or they’ve been raped and paying CS, or had their sperm used from a condom. There’s endless reasons for older men to be bitter, upset and angry and young men would be wise to listen to them.
I’m fortunate that my sons have good parents but many sons don’t and they are walking time bombs (so to speak). It’s in NZ’s best interest to keep an eye on this site.
That’s one of the most powerful statements I’ve read of yours Julie.
It appears many young men are listening to older men as you advocate too Julie –
The internet is special IMO not just because information flows freely and from all angles, but because the old, middle aged and young can all come together to help one another. IMO, it’s a wonderful opportunity and could make for a wonderful future.
I probably wouldn’t have highlighted ‘there’s endless reasons’ (for older men to be bitter, upset and angry). Hmm, maybe the words ‘young men would be wise to listen to them’ is a better choice IMO. (An added explanation of the benefits younger men will receive would be a bonus).
I’ve just started putting something together that I’m proposing to Waiparera Trust for young men in my neighbourhood (I didn’t want to go this far but I’ve been encouraged …………). The young women in the area need the same.
I’m a big fan of some MRAs and I like their MGTOW ideas so I’ll continue making the same statement. OH, and I like a lot of the men on men’s sites whether they’re there as MRAs or for themselves.
Thanks for adding this Skeptic. I’m not sure if you’ve linked this here before or if I read it while visiting MND. It sure is something that needs to be read by young men. Hey,….
Some time ago you gave a link to a men’s magazine like UHF or something similar that had an article on men’s contraception. I couldn’t beleive the amount of comments coming from young men saying they fear young and older women deliberately lying to become pregnant and how many men they knew who had been caught up in this.
It’s a far cry from men’s representatives who are trained in gender studies. They advocate, write and speak about men forcefully making women pregnant. Men are blamed for women choosing to keep a baby and for women choosing to abort a baby. They are also blamed for the spread of aids and stds.
Here you go! This article and it’s comments say it best,… me thinks. 🙂
Thank-you Julie for a pure gold article.
This part of it leaps off the page at me –
Increasingly the wised up younger man sees his ignorant dumb pussy whipped brothers as a hindrance to men’s emancipation.
He rightly recognize himself as a walking target whose need for survival is stronger than that for reproduction.
He steers clear of modern women empowered as she is with her evil feminist propaganda and henchmen/women – the veritable venus fly trap.
It seems the all too prevalent ‘tar all men with the same brush as oppressors’ feminist mentality which surfaced during the aftermath of the Meads incident is being rigorously challenged.
At ehe same time New Zealand as a destination for tourists is smack bang center target as questionable with non other than this MRA heavy hitter who many thousands read daily, who in turn talk to thousands of others, who in turn…….
boycott visiting New Zealand?
Skeptic, this hearsay (about AirNZ) isn’t true but I thought, “Nah, let it go!” Paul will get the response, “Unaccompanied children sit with the crew/staff and not with either man or woman.” You forget this one was sorted years ago and the policy stayed but extended to women also.
I am loving the women (friends) that surround me presently. They soooo get what’s going on. One was telling me 2 days ago about an important move to save the environment from business abuse out Sth Auckland way, and how she realised if she got the Maori speaking to her as the journalist of an article (self contractor writing for business, etc around the world) the move would have stopped.
But, as she said, Maori won’t talk to mainstream media any more. It’s the same in Waitakere – nothing comes out of Waiparera. They’ve had a guts full of being treated badly.
She said to me, “The future for men is the same. They’ll cut the ties”.
I’m thinking the one small hope we have is that men speak on public Internet forums because once things go underground/shut out mainstream/cut off…. hmmm, I can’t imagine the repercussions.
Do you realise when you write a new comment to a comment under a comment, readers have a hard time knowing which comment you are commenting to. 😉
Link for your comment.
Edit: Hope you read this, but I thought maybe you wrote this piece. This has you all over it. 🙂
Julie (Hi by the way 🙂 ) … the reason that Paul wrote that particular letter can be traced back to an article written by you back in January of this year (2010).
When Paul posted a thread about his impending holiday to New Zealand I replied on that thread in the hope that he wouldn’t provide Air New Zealand with any business considering the information posted by you and the resulting soMENi Bigoted Airlines – Airline Discrimination Table that was constructed by me (SickofNZ).
Your thread (Jan 2010): http://menz.org.nz/2010/men-banned-to-sit-next-to-children-on-airline-flights/
I just read your comment on Paul’s site – nice to see and the mention of your site because it has valuable information for men.
Gosh, thank-you for taking me seriously.
I’m thinking there’s a lesson in this – update information. But then, AirNZ did make their policy bluntly against men which happened before I found this site. Check this post out and it’s comments. If complaints are coming in 5 years later, they’ll definitely be thinking twice before attacking men again. (fingers crossed) Good on you for speaking up about it.
Hi again Wayne, I can’t say this was sorted years ago when I wrote about it this year. It must have been this year I learnt the policy is to sit children with crew. How embarrassing.
Thanks for that Julie. I’ll leave the information on the soMENi Bigoted Airlines page as it stands until I can verify the change of policy by Air New Zealand. I wonder if your thread back in January had any impact on their decision to make those changes?
Can you remember how you discovered their change of policy?
Here’s something funny, …. young men told me yesterday it’s masculine to hold a grudge and feminine to forgive. (Well, it wasn’t about ‘love’, but about ‘justice’).
I think they’re right. AirNZ fucked over men and that’s that. Men (they say) don’t go back for more punishment and they don’t be treated as second class. Come to think about it, modern women wouldn’t be giving them a second chance either sooooo, IMO leave it up. 😉
well, it’s always a team effort – seeds are planted, watered and given food. Who’s to know which is more important, all a smart person realises is that none work without the other.
Gosh, I would have expected that to be reversed. Maybe I’ve known a disproportionate amount of women who hold grudges and men who forgive? Or, considering the youth of the men you spoke of and our feminized education system, they could be tainted with feminine qualities. It could also be possible that some people hold grudges and others forgive despite their gender. Interesting nevertheless.
Oh, shit. haha. I am forgetful at the moment. Gosh I’m very sorry for my comment.
Yeah, even women say women are more vengeful than men. Men do something and it’s over, while women make you pay long term.
Edit: How about I agree it depends on the person, lol.
Wayne, here’s an out of it question. What do you think about Bernard Chaplin? I’m expecting you to say you like him but why, what’s the attraction?
Hi D, this is what I wrote about you. CLICK HERE You need to know there’s no coming back once you get involved.
The first and only time I’ve ever seen Bernard Chaplin was in an article on A Voice for Men. I’m sorry that I can’t really give an opinion because I don’t have one. If I told you that I’d check him out some more and offer an opinion I know I’d probably never get around to doing it.
Lol, I’ll agree with you on that, even if the person usually, but not always, has two X chromosomes 😀
That’s a shame. You must be like me – very busy, lots of things to do…… I’m writing a list of things that need to be done because I feel overwhelmed and soon I’ll feel stressed. After this, I’ll get onto it.
Bernard Chaplin does videos instead of writing. He makes it look easy IMO, and I think he has a gift of expression (facial and hand movement). Not only that, but he has what I’ve heard called, ‘the gift of the gab’ – he could make for a good entertainer, politician, bull-shit artist, lol etc, and possibly, he doesn’t even have notes (he doesn’t even look like he prepared anything, but I bet he has to do some preparation).
I guess I’m kinda jealous and a bit resentful. Some people breeze through life with everything being easy to deal with. But then, I’ve learnt often what you see on the outside of someone is totally different than what’s going on, on the inside. It’s hard to know, but either way, he does speak up for men’s rights and I hope he is successful at it. (seems to be).
I might try my hand at something else other than writing like Bernard. Writing is hard work, IMO, but like your site, I’m wanting to put pages of useful information on my site for single parents. I get lots of enquiries and would rather have somewhere to refer people than repeat the same thing over and over again.
Cheeky but understandable. With you and I being of the opposite sex and dealing with the opposite sex in opposite ways, we are going to have opposite experiences, opposite fears, opposite opinions, opposite this and opposite that. Haha, I enjoy this,…..
re Meads murder by Hans Laven.
I opologise for this late reply to the article published 24th October. I have just been directed to this website.
It is obvious that no research was done by Hans Laven before he wrote his article.
The defence lawyer for Meads (McKechnie) had all evidence of the violence that Helen suffered suppressed from the trial.With it obviously was the medical records of the violence. He claimed it would prejudice his defence of Meads. As such, so was all evidence of Meads threatening, controlling behaviour over all members of that household suppressed, for the same reason. Suppressed by the defence, not by the prosecution as you claim. May I quote you; “How ethical is it for news media to parrot unsubstantiated slurs against someone, with no apparent effort to check the validity of the allegations and not even any hint of cautious questioning or tentative wording about them?” Well Hans Laven, that’s exactly what you have done yourself in your article. It seems that you don’t live by the same rules you apply to others. McKechnie tried hard to show that Helen Meads was leaving a perfectly happy marriage, the jury weren’t fooled. Why were you? The forensic evidence was overwhelming, guilty of murder was the only possible verdict. What the media print afterwards has no relevance to his trial.
Hey David White,
I don’t understand exactly what your beef with Hans is, but it seems you’re trying to claim that there is forensic medical evidence of systematic violence done by a man towards a woman and others that was suppressed in a NZ court.
Tui moment methinks.
As someone there watching the WHOLE trial YES there was evidence withheld YES in a NZ court and YES it was domestic violence! Before YOU pass comment on something you obviously know nothing about maybe YOU should gather a few FACTS and weigh it ALL up or better still go and sit in on a similar trial!!!
Actually r guff isn’t the name it’s Skeptik, and skeptical I remain.
You claim you were there and evidenced the trial.
Er right. Another Tui moment methinks.
I’ve only got your word for it. Whoever you are, or pose as.
And as I don’t know you from a cucumber sandwich for all I know you could be some vindictive little feminazzi deluded nitwit.
I still find it unbelievable that after decades of feminist zietgiest ANY NZ court at all would suppress ANY evidence of a man committing DV.
Indeed I’ve heard many accounts of NZ police’s policy of arresting men for DV on the mere hearsay of a woman. Jesus, our national carrier Air NZ won’t allow men to sit next to unaccompanied children. Never mind that women are the major perpetrators of child abuse. We men are all child molesting, satanic ritual, raping wife beaters don’t you know?
You’ll have to do allot better than that.
Get off the grass whoever you are.
Were you there through the whole trial? IF you were are you deaf,blind or just plain ignorant?
To guff, skeptic and others who haven’t the guts to stand behind your own name, and only want to spout rubbish from behind an alias, Yes I am stating a fact, not making a claim. That evidence was suppressed. Check it out, or is that too difficult? Does the truth not suit you?, and are you so small minded and bigoted that you are beyond thinking rationally?
Hey David White,
I don’t use my real name for good reason.
having been through NZs feminist grinder I’m not about to make myself a sitting duck again. You say check out the ‘fact’ that evidence of a man committing multiple instances of domestic violence was suppressed in court.
I say the onus is rather on you to prove it, not try to get me to do the work of backing up YOUR claim. In essence I think you should put up or shut up.
Resorting to the insults (small minded, bigoted and questioning someones rationality) isn’t winning you points or friends either.
I’m not your lapdog.
like I said the onus is ON YOU to prove YOUR claim.
No amount of invective is going to substitute for doing so.
Me just gullibly taking you at your word would be irrationality on my part.
Dear David White:
Ok, thanks for letting us know. I accept your information in good faith and have made addendums to my post accordingly.
Please note though that I never actually claimed that no medical evidence existed. Further, a judge will rule evidence inadmissible for various reasons. Had the cause of the injuries been proven? Did Greg Meads have convictions for earlier violence? For some years now law changes have seen NZ police routinely pressing prosecutions for alleged domestic violence with or without a complainant. You might then understand that aware men will not automatically accept allegations of such serious past violence when extensive coverage of the case made no mention of relevant charges, convictions or corroborating evidence.
I wrote “The portrayal….of Mr Meads as a violent patriarch may or may not be accurate.” How do you read that as me being fooled?
That’s a ridiculous thing to say given that my post included 13 linked references plus other direct quotes resulting from my research which had clearly been considerable. Further, I did not write an “article”. MENZ is not a news media publication but a discussion group.
What is “obvious” is that you simply sought to denigrate me with cheap insults rather than reading carefully and considering the main points I was making. However, I do understand the emotional difficulty that people close to the case might have in reading related commentary in any considered way.
I never claimed that the prosecution withheld evidence; I simply suggested that as a possible explanation. While I am happy to stand corrected for errors I am not happy to be misrepresented. Also, the defence could not “suppress” prosecution evidence but the judge can rule evidence inadmissible.
Firstly, I did not write an “article”. Secondly, my wording was tentative concerning all matters about which I had no certainty. Thirdly, I have already refuted (above, on 9/11/10) your ill-conceived allegation of hypocrisy. I am not a journalist and I provided no information that was not already in the public domain. I have neither responsibility nor means to check the validity of others’ allegations that journalists passed on to the public; that was their job. I referred to various statements that reputable news sources informed us had been made by various people, and I discussed gender political issues relevant to those statements. I regret any distress that may have been caused by my exercise of free speech.
You are right: guilty of murder was the only possible verdict under current legislation. What’s your point? Are you also claiming that would have been the only option if the partial defence of provocation were available? In that case are you claiming that, for example, the quoted text messages were fictitious or perhaps that they did not amount to provocation?
Please note also that I wrote “His action was no more acceptable in a civilized society than a wife similarly killing her husband, and Mr Meads deserves appropriate justice.”
Again, I extend my sympathy to you and others who have suffered this tragic loss.
Welcome David White and R.
While you’re here, you might find some other interesting discussions to comment on or spend some time looking up links and being introduced to many innocent men getting caught up in the system.
Off topic, Paul Elam from a voice for men, received a reply from AirNZ about it’s policy to not sit children with men. The part I found interesting was this:
Now to find the inspiration to write about communism for numerous women on facebook.;) They don’t know why we’re heading down the communist track.
Thanks for posting the update on Paul Elam’s letter to Air NZ challenging their misandry.
Other have taken issue with the familiar misogynist argument Hans attempts to make. I wish only to query, on what basis do you claim that ‘A man is killed by his partner or ex-partner about every twelve weeks’? This is very different to the Police statistics I have read.
Is that the same Neville Robertson who habitually lectured hundreds if not thousands of students at Waikato University spouting off misandric feminist propaganda such as
“research shows 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted during their lifetime”?
(Miriam Saphira’s man-hating bile).
The same Neville Robertson who used to swell his chest with pride as he announced “When I see a woman alone on the street at night, I cross the road so as to be on the other side of the road from her “sniff” to make her feel safe”.
Jeese! like all us men are batterers.
I hear news that in these cash-strapped times certain governments throughout the Anglosphere are looking long and hard at closing down certain university departments and programs which DON’T enhance their nation’s productivity e.g women’s studies, certain humanities programs.
I can therefore easily imagine that after all these MANY MANY years you who of all people are actually supposed to be cognizant of social issues (lecturer in Social Sciences) are actually FINALLY humbling yourself to coming to this site to ask questions, listen and learn from Men’s Rights Activists.
But perhaps I paint you in too altruistic a light.
Could it rather be because as in other parts of the Anglosphere your precious social sciences empire may be under threat?
“familiar misogynist argument”? I strongly deny making any misogynist argument. Can you point to any such “familiar” argument in my posting, or otherwise explain this claim?
Was it a misogynist argument to state
Or perhaps it was misogynist to suggest that a degree of provocation might be caused by dishonest assurances of good faith whilst plotting behind a partner’s back to “bring down” that partner, to leave him “f****d”, to clean out his home and to leave him with nothing but a pile of his clothes.
Stranger things are happening Skeptic.
Who would ever have thought that leftist film-maker Michael Moore would go to bat to defend a man on trumped up sex-crime charges?
Here is something else to think about; the countries that have not adopted Feminist ideas are invariably countries that have been under Communist government in their not too distant past.
Perhaps they understand something about Feminism that countries in the West do not.
Is that the same Neville Roberts who was instrumental alongside lesbian feminist Hillary Lapsley in advocating for, piloting and overseeing the spread of feminist domestic violence programs to NZ. You know, the types of programs based on the Duluth model with it’s power and control wheel – all of which got DENOUNCED by the very same women’s group in Duluth Minnesota themselves as fundamentally flawed!
I’d provide a link for that, but our detractor Mr Roberts is supposed to be an expert in the social sciences after all, so I’ll leave him to find it himself
it took me all of 30 seconds to find scores of links including academic papers and video. Some expert our esteemed Mr Roberts is eh?)
Is that the same guy who fed from the public purse so richly for many years sucking from the misery created by his precious anger management ‘models’? The same guy who has made a handsome living lending intellectual ‘credence’ and rubber stamping every leftist man bashing feminist policy put in place by Comrade Helen Clarkski for nine long dark years? Policies he didn’t get impacted by so far away in his ivory tower and so insulated and cozy with his socialist feminist cabal.
I’ll bet it is.
And you have the nerve to come here to a site populated by people so terribly damaged by the very policies you spawned and/or supported and bleat about their supposed misogyny!
Holy Jesus! Talk about projection!
From a psychologist too.
Good for us MRA you come here though Mr Roberts.
When feminists like you come here we can be certain it’s because Men’s Rights activists are making an impact and you’re feeling threatened.
By the way the appropriate response to feeling threatened (according to domestic violence programs) is NOT to hurl silly unsubstantiated abuse by saying “You’re misogynist!”
It’s to say “I don’t feel safe, I need to take time out, I’ll come back when I’ve calmed down”.
Dear Mr Robertson,
I am an advocate for survivors of child sexual abuse.
I am very familiar with the style of your advocacy and the impact it has on male victims of abuse, particularly those abused by women.
You, sir, contribute to the marginalisation these victims experience. They are not merely refused help they are ridiculed and accused of lying by services supposedly funded to help victims. Some of those victims don’t make it. You are one of those responsible for this.
Furthermore your advocacy provides cover for their rapists and mutilators and beaters. They get away with it because of you sir. I hope they appreciate your efforts on their behalf.
Understand that when you marginalise victims of abuse you add to the harm the abuse causes them. As such you, Mr Robertson, may as well be a participant abuser. You have their blood on your hands and your conscience.
Those victims want answers from you and others like you Mr Robertson. It’s time for you to answer for the harm you do them.
Here is a news item from TV3 that states:
The 14F/6M/10C figure seems to originate from Police statistics covering the period 2000-2004.
Interesting is that these are the most up-to-date statistics available from the New Zealand Family Violence Clearing House, another of these organisations which fails to accept that partern violence is reciprocal (I assume the site does not publish more up-to-date statistics because the picture they paint is not as one-sided and narrow-minded as that portrayed by the NZFMC site as well as people like yourself).
This one-sided approach is directly contributing to NZFVC funding as well as to your salary so I can understand why you call Hans’ post misogynist.
Communism is Talmudism and the Talmud is the code of the organised crime family. Feminism is part of the game plan. BTW, communism is intended for us, not for them. One book you can download in pdf format gives insight into the communist ‘revolution’ in Russia in 1917, in their own words the beginning of the world takeover: http://www.archive.org/details/UnderTheSignOfTheScorpion
You should read the table more carefully.
You are quite right to be concerned about the number of men killed in family violence incidents. As the table shows, between 2000 and 2004, 26 men were murdered in family-violence related incidents. The comparable figures for women and children were 56 and 39 respectively). However, Hans’ claim that a “A man is killed by his partner or ex-partner about every twelve weeks” is quite unfounded. Of the 26 men murdered between 2000 and 2004, just 3 were murdered by their female partner or ex-partner – that is rather less than one a year. In comparison, of the 56 women killed, 45 were killed by a male partner or ex-partner.
Men do die in family violence incidents – there is no question of that. However, it quite rare for them to be killed by a woman (ex)partner. The killers are generally other men – brothers, sons and, in particular, the ex-partner of their new girlfriend.
If for no other reason, men should take violence against women seriously. Those perpetrators are a risk to us too.
women murdered wA man is killed by his partner or ex-partner about every twelve weeks
amily Violence Murders
As it says, Description
Between 2000 and 2004
Numbers murdered in family violence-related incidents
Number of women murdered by their male partner or ex-partner
Number of men murdered by their female partner or ex-partner
Gender of adults who murdered children
So that’s it then game, set and statistical match to our statistical expert Neville Robertson eh?
I think not.
He has a point about reading the Police clearing house numbers.
But he always was good at cherry picking statistics to drive his agenda.
Stay mindful of 1 in 4. It’s one of his favorites!
However, some of us are not so naive, myopic or ideologically bent as to believe the Family Violence Clearing house statistics are the final word on domestic violence in NZ.
That would be taking a prescibed and flawed view of things.
There is a much bigger picture than the Ivory tower cherry picked statistical analysis he offers.
Why do I say that?
Well, several reasons, all inter-related.
Firstly I know for a fact having done the social services rounds for many years in NZ that many within domestic violence services including police, counselors, certain academics judges, psychologists and court staff are ardent feminists.
Having met them I know their misandry is palpable.
I’ve no doubt they are inclined to massage statistics to fit their ideological narrative – woman good / man bad. It’s a VERY lucrative business for them as it is for Mr Roberts.
Secondly it’s common knowledge amongst many in NZ that many Police precincts have regrading calls to domestic incidents an arrest the male policy (regardless of whether in fact he’s the victim or not). These arrests then get FALSELY recorded in such places as the clearing house.
Don’t believe me? Leave your gilded halls and talk to guys as much as I have in NZ.
You’ll get the picture.
And lastly because it’s common knowledge that many men each year are driven to despair after contact with feminist ‘social services’ in NZ. To such despair that they suicide. To my way of thinking given the level of misandry in NZ there’s a form of murder going on right there.
As for murder of children.
You need to get out of your ivory tower much more Mr Roberts.
Many in NZ don’t subscribe to your narrow leftist feminist doctrine.
They recognize that thousands of children are murdered by women in NZ every year, but don’t end up being recorded in your precious statistics.
Let’s see if your ignorance extends to even being able to put a name to that practice.
It’s a fools game to hide behind statistics.
It’s an even bigger fools game to get sucked in by such from ‘experts’.
As Roger Daltrey once said – “Won’t get fooled again”.
Interesting that such a rare event should feature this very day in the New Zealand Herald.
What’s notable is that the judge (a female) thinks shooting a husband dead with a shotgun warrants no more than 12 months home detention. Apparently being a frightened woman with MS is all it takes to beat a murder charge and prison. Nothing like a little provocation to get that trigger finger itching is there?
Why does the woman judge find another woman’s fear suitable cause to reduce a charge, but a man’s anger is something he must keep under control at all times? If we expect people to master strong emotions that imperil the lives of others, why the pussy pass?
I think an equally appropriate questions are:
Why has no-one officially complained about the conduct of the judge?
Why is nothing being done about the blatant disregard for human life?
Why is their no protest action and serious demands being made on parliament for allowing this to take place?
Why is the Department of Justice being allowed to get away with such blatant sexist behaviour?
The biggest questions don’t lay with the judge and her conduct, but the actions of the men of New Zealand who to this date have not taken any serious action and DEMANDED a fair and impartial justice system. Close to HALF the adult population of New Zealand are men, why are they allowing the system in New Zealand to continue to treat them this way? What do you think would happen if all the adult men of New Zealand marched on parliament and demanded change? Is it possible that rapid change would then take place? How many more deaths, and how many more ruined lives is it going to take to get men to wake up and take action?
Below you will find links to videos which highlight exactly the kind of ‘social’ ‘science’ snake oil Neville Robertson has been profitably peddling to many gullible folks for many years.
WARNING – for some it will be very difficult viewing!
If through watching painful memories of emotional trauma resulting from contact with feminists and white knights get re-ignited and it feels very burdensome even depressing please seek out your nearest source of of male-friendly support.
Alternately share those memories here.
I am confident you will be listened to by a growing online community who have a lot of empathy and expertise in dealing with such pain.
They can not only listen but also refer you to other sources of comfort.
Domestic violence 1 – The Duluth model
Domestic violence 2 – The Duluth model part 2
Domestic violence – Introduction 1
Domestic violence – Part 2
Domestic violence – Part 3
Neville Robertson: I am more than happy to enter a debate about gender violence and homicide statistics.
But first, could you please respond to the question I put to you on 18/12 asking you to explain how my posting was “a familiar misogynist argument”? Or was your comment simply an indirect personal attack, labelling and character assassination exercise, a favourite form of debate for feminist ideologues? We often see such cheap slurs, seldom backed up with evidence or logical argument, against anyone who dares to express any opinion that doesn’t fit feminist preference.
I think it misogynist to argue that a decision to leave a relationship with an abusive man could be a mitigating factor for homicide. However, I will happily withdraw my comment in the interests of having you clarify – or correct – your claim that “A man is killed by his partner or ex-partner about every twelve weeks.”
Neville, they’d be more than 4 a year. And truth be told, there are many ways for women to kill men with the easiest being – set one man up against another.
White Ribbon encourages it, lol.
These are sooooo cool. Some words aren’t relevant to NZ but the message is powerful and I love the way they got men talking about their own experiences.
I don’t think the small differences matter because some people will get it and some will find every excuse possible and never get it.
Thanks for this observation –
Mr Robertson might actually hear that seeing as it’s coming from a woman.
It’s nice to know one of the names (Neville Robertson) of that class of ignorant [expletive deleted by moderator] that prevented me from obtaining help when my ex wife attempted to kill my children on three separate occasions and also plotted my death using drugs, poison and firearms.
Thanks [expletive deleted by moderator] May you reap what you sow.
That’s sad. For it means Neville doesn’t understand what he teaches let alone supports.
OMG, and thank God you’re still with us.
There’s pages of women hiring hitman.
I choose to share this one from India
Oh, I must share this one from South Africa also.
I see that the vitriol continues but I am still waiting for Hans to clarify or correct his claim that one man in NZ is killed by a woman partner or expartner every 12 weeks. Simply claiming that it is so doesn’t make it so.
Wow! You show just how bad the system is.
We can see reality all around us and yet an interest group can stop the government, it’s departments including hospitals and schools, and communities from accepting this reality.
If it’s not on your statistical worksheet, it doesn’t exist, as far as you’re concerned. And yet how can it get on your statical worksheet when you only care for one side.
The stats you show between 2000 and 2004 are not only outdated and different than what the police are measuring now, but they’re biased because not only is there no separate law for ‘Woman assaults Man’ as there is ‘Man assaults woman’, but they didn’t have any way of separating parts of ‘common assault’.
Instead of using the stats you are, surely you’ve already received the 2009 report?
It surprises me that someone like you gets to determine what’s in the best interest of women….. It’s a sad world.
You make valid points.
First the books NR uses to make his case have been cooked, and as you point out they’re outdated too.
Many of us here know that.
We deal with what’s on the ground, not removed in some lofty ivory tower.
The greater insult is the complete denial on NR’s part that we get him coming along sanctimoniously preaching misandric ‘stats’, which we know get used to lobby for more funding for feminist organizations, which in turn lobby for their perspective to be the official political perspective and on and on the wheels of corruption and injustice spin.
Notice how he’s ducked every single critique of his precious ‘stats’ we’ve put to him.
Talk about a spreadsheet mentality!
He clings to his numerology like it’s a life raft – because it is.
Without it he’s sunk.
And he surely knows it.
Academically (his very handsome crust earner)he then gets to look dumb.
Then he’s finished.
It means decades of his life become in effect a huge regret he has to come to terms with.
Trust me as a former feminist I know how painful that can be, and when I went through the paradigm shift i had nothing like what he has to loose – feminist wife, kids, lucrative academic career built on feminism, network of feminist friends etc
I personally don’t see him having the moral courage and integrity to go down that road.
Too old, too set in his ways; just plain too scared I suppose.
But I’m willing to be proved wrong on that.
Time will tell.
The saddest part is the longer the denial exists the more damage gets done to many innocent people.
I’m proud of you Julie.
In days gone by you would have sided with NR, but you’ve grown tremendously to the point of being very grounded and wonderfully supportive of men’s rights here at MENZ. Well done!
Yes, you can interpret the harsh words that come your way as vitriol.
But what FEELING do you think such words arise from – anger perhaps? even outrage possibly? immense frustration possibly?
Don’t you think that’s a very fair deduction to make?
Now the question becomes are you brave enough to listen past the name-calling ‘arsewipe’ and actually hear AND ACKNOWLEDGE the deep pain?
Do you have that much compassion for a fellow MAN?
They are not “my” stats we are talking about here. The only statistics introduced to this conversation were those referred to by Hans in his original posting, and those of Family Violence Death Review Committee and the Police referred to by Pete Hug in his posting of Sunday 19th December. As was pointed out, and I am quoting Pete here, “on average 14 women, six men and 10 children were killed per year as a result of family violence. However for 2009 the figures were quite different – 13 women, 12 men and 16 children.”
I don’t think anyone is denying – certainly not in this discussion – that men die as a result of family violence. Those deaths, like the deaths of women and children, are a tragedy and much to be regretted. In the context of this discussion, I was concerned that it seemed – although only Hans can clarify this – that there was an assumption that the men who died were killed by women partners or ex partners. The only data I can find – and Pete also drew our attention to them – which include an analysis of the relationship between the murderer and victim show us that mostly, this is not the case.
Skeptic – your anger, outrage and immense frustration are very obvious in the words you write.
When you deny and obfuscate by gladly using and hurting folks with stats which others admittedly create and supply but YOU RECYCLE, yes I and others feel frustrated, angry, even outraged.
We feel threatened by your actions because they demonize men.
Oh okay – which of my actions demonize men? I think one of the things which has happened is that this site has created a caricature of me which has only a passing resemblance to my views.
See that’s exactly the kind of denial I’m talking about.
Several people have been cataloging your misandric demonizing behavior on this thread alone and you have the nerve to come back asking “what behavior?” like you can’t even read!
And you wonder why folks get exasperated and angry with you!
Listen, I know folks who went to Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project HAIPP as it was referred to. Something YOU were directly involved insetting up.
They didn’t go as participants.
They went as researchers to talk to the real support group that was happening outside during smoko break when the guys directed to do the program consoled one another over the blatant male shaming which was part of the program – talk of ‘male privilege’ and ‘patriarchy’ and the like.
Some of the guys there even mentioned that if they’d known how bad the program was which YOU largely designed and certainly advocated strongly for was they would have taken the judges alternative offer of a short prison sentence instead.
You know what I’m talking about.
The whole defunct misandric Duluth model YOU’VE been instrumental in proselytizing from your lecture podium and elsewhere.
Don’t deny that for goodness sake!
Many can attest to seeing that with their own eyes.
It’s not a charicature of you.
It’s how many of us have seen you in real life!
And that’s not even counting the whole misandric “1 in 4 women have been sexually abused in their lifetime” bullshit you’ve earned a living from – a monstrous feminist shibboleth.
Then you have the nerve to question a stat of 12 men a year for being accurate.
My God! We’re saying the stat Hans refers to is only the tip of the ice burg.
Yet you remain resolutely focused on it like it’s the be all and end all.
I’m afraid you are stuck man.
Really horribly stuck.
Jeeze wept Mr Robertson!
One of your pet projects – The Hamilton Abuse Intervention Program, (the initial precursor for feminist anger management programs accross NZ) wich YOU were instrumental in designing and getting millions of taxpayers dollars for wouldn’t even hire people unless they signed a document attesting to their belief in such misandric notions as “Male privelige’ and ‘the patriarchy’.
All stupid stuff the women who came up with the Duluth wheel of power and control recognized as being bigotted and gynocentric and moved on from long, long ago.
You then have the further gall to poo poo folks feelings of pain and outrage when such matters are put to you – like our feelings aren’t important.
Keep going man.
You’re showing your true colors bigtime for a WIDE audience to see.
I need to point out that the 2009 report police did was a one of because they were asked to make note of ‘common assault’ if it was in fact from a family violent situation. Afterwards, we’ve gone back to women having their own unique law [common assault used to cover all DV]and assault on men being lost in common assault.
Project HAIPP will do it. I attended one of these.
Yes it is indeed a feminist rort to hide women’s abuse behind common assault, whilst retaining ‘male assaults female’ as a separate category of crime. So of course many assaults by females on males will get overlooked as there’s no separate category of ‘female assaults male’.
I’m afraid the feminist corruption extends even further though.
I recently went here and was absolutely gobsmacked astounded at the barefaced rort going on I discovered.
It’s there in black and white for anyone to see.
look at the references given at the bottom of the page.
You’ll see many references are attributed to Neville Robertson,
lesbian feminist Ruth Busch and Roma Balzer.
See link – http://pipl.com/directory/people/Roma/Balzer
What’s striking about that are several things.
Firstly you’ll notice that the references are in many cases for reviews of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project and they’re done by …………wait for it Mr Neville Robertson!
Hold on a moment.
Does that mean the same feminist guy who lobbied hard to get the program up and running, who has a vested interest in it both financially and emotionally got to review it? I’m afraid so.
Alongside fellow feminists without ANY input from non feminist men’s groups? I’m afraid so.
Collaborating with the likes of Ruth Busch an out and out dyke with no experience of being in a heterosexual relationship that we know of yet supposedly therefore an expert on men’s violence to women?
Yes, again I’m afraid so.
Does that mean that contrary to any notions of there being any conflicts of interest he’s written reviews with an actual CO-ORDINATOR of HAIPP – Roma Balzer? Yes, I’m afraid so.
Then their ‘reviews’, I won’t say independent reviews, that would be way too much of a stretch of the imagination, get pumped into the Family Violence Clearance Center’s website as though authoritative? Yep, afraid so.
Does it strike you as it does me as being a multi-million dollar (over the years) taxpayer scamming corrupt incestuous set up?
And the saddest part is Mr Robertson after doing all the things that have been cataloged on this thread (and more to be revealed) for decades, supposedly a paragon of championing for social justice, asks what behavior of his is misandric.
I can barely begin to describe the irony of that question.
Neville, thanks for your contribution to your discussion. Those figures are interesting.
I am curious on one area though. Based on those statistics, for that period 56 adult women died in family violence incidents and 65 other people died in family violence incidents. Why then do you think we have campaigns like White Ribbon state “Stop domestic violence against women” when women are the minority of these deaths? Why do we not have campaigns that simply support the unqualified proposition “stop domestic violence”?
I’m interested in and look forward to your response.
Skeptic, thank you soooo much for sharing the link to Neville’s work.
You speak for every major group forced into their work. None want to speak up publicly because they’re afraid to lose their funding. Neville and his crowd are the bullies in the playground and I want to take them on. Every man and woman who is an individual willing to lose their job for social justice backs your words, – I promise.
It’s just that they’re so powerful now and they abuse that power so well that their victims have very small resources. Like I say, “Once the power is corrupted, it’s very, very hard to stop the abuse”.
Please don’t give up Skeptic, they may have all the toys to play with because money flows their way, but they have no time to play.
If anything, let our play destroy them, lol. Now that’s irony. hehe.
Thanks for clarifying your reasoning. Clearly then, it is false to say that I offered a misogynist argument. In no way did I suggest that a decision to leave a relationship, for any reason, could be a mitigating factor for homicide. Further, your initial claim that “others have taken issue with” that or any other misogynist argument on my part is incorrect. Two people have disapproved that I highlighted published information (other than what they preferred the public to consider) about this case that suggested provocation was relevant.
Also, I haven’t read any argument elsewhere that a decision to leave a relationship could be a mitigating factor for homicide, and I doubt it is a ‘familiar misogynist argument’ at all. One might assume that some homicidal partners held that opinion at the time they reacted but that would be true for both male and female killers.
I would of course prefer you to withdraw your allegation because it is a false allegation. But my guess is that you knew that from the outset and you have carefully and deliberately worded an attack simply to attach the word ‘misogynist’ to me. You did so without any effort to explain your derogation, and sure enough, when challenged you have been unable to point to anything I wrote that would justify it. This is a form of typically feminist violence, known for using such tactics as lies, character assassination, labelling, blacklisting, humiliation and emotional abuse. If you had any honour you would not have done it in the first place. I haven’t yet sought advice about how your slur might sit with the psychologists code of ethics or NZ libel law.
For the record though, I respect men and women equally based on their behaviour, not their gender. To the extent that feminism once promoted equal laws, treatment, protection, opportunity and responsibility for males and females, I consider myself a feminist.
Before I participate in further discussion concerning partner homicide statistics, I wish to resolve the matter of your offensive behaviour first. I hope you will take appropriate steps towards that end on your own initiative.
Please feel free to take up my posting with the Psychologists Board.
You are right: you didn’t say leaving a relationship was a mitigating factor but that it could have been used as the basis of a partial defence of provocation. While I do understand that there is a difference between a plea in mitigation and a defence, I think using an announced intention to leave a relationship in either context is extremely problematic in that it effectively places significant constraints on the ability of a victim of abuse to leave an abusive relationship. As it was, Helen Meads’ decision to leave her husband was not easily arrived at – as her father has pointed out.
I take it, then, that you are not going to address the issue of the basis for your claim (that one man dies at the hands of his partner or ex-partner every 12 weeks)?
Mr Roberts asks where he’s demonizing men.
Anyone can go to the online version of his submitted Doctoral thesis and see him spreading demonizing misandric bile about men.
There you’ll find a veritable pandora’s box of the stuff.
It starts with him bowing to the skirts of women he adores for their ‘insightfulness’ into the wicked ways of men.
Weird thing is one of them is a a dyke who as far as we can tell has never had a close relationship with a man.
Then there’s ALL the ‘courageous’ women who’ve shared their stories of being victims. (Er, right, like all were angels and none of them made false allegations did I hear you mutter? Like you just took ’em for their sacred feminine word because your a ……… did you say?)
Then there’s the inclusion of the easily debunked Duluth Power and Control Wheel which DOESN’T acknowledge female privilege, but simply beats on men for forming a demonic ‘patriarchy’.
(This in a country which has services galore for women only and last time I looked the menfolk weren’t sneaking off behind the shed to plot the demise of women did I hear you say?)
The stupidly regurgitated and long ago dispelled feminist myth of
‘the rule of thumb’ is there too.
(I know. I know. It’s cuckooland stuff but I swear I’m not making this stuff up!Go and look for yourselves.
These being just SOME parts which even on their own constitute an ignorant hatefulness towards other men coming from a true believer in the cult of feminism.
No doubt there’s a lot more in the thesis, but I don’t have the stomach for plowing through it right now.
It’s Christmas and I’m about to celebrate despite reading Mr Robertson’s demonizing dribble.
Have a Merry Christmas everyone.
And as my dear Latin teacher used to say
“None illigitimus tatum carborundum”
Roughly translated as “Don’t let the bastards grind you down!”
Have you actually read my posting? I did not in any way suggest that leaving a relationship could have been used as the basis of a partial defence of provocation or should ever be used as such. Why do you continue to misrepresent my posting when it is clearly there to check?
As I have repeatedly said, I fully intend to discuss the matter of partner homicide statistics but I wish first to address your outrageous slur and your now ongoing efforts to misrerpresent what I wrote.
I invite you now to read my post carefully, then either show where it makes the argument you ascribe to me or acknowledge that it does not, then withdraw and apologize for slurring my reputation with the word misogynist.
This is getting oh, so predictable.
Talk about being stuck in a time warp.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen this happen!
Question a feminist, and wham bam! knee jerk reaction is they’ll try guilt tripping you by calling you a misogynist.
It is sooooooooooo 1980s all over again!
Saddest part is they haven’t learnt IT DOESN’T WORK ANYMORE.
It just boomerangs right back to them when they get called on such misandric behavior.
For those interested in feminist shaming tactics go here.
For those interested in the specific tactic being used by Mr Robertson just scroll down to code black on the same page.
Thanks Skeptic for the interesting list of ad hominem attacks that we often see from feminists against anyone who challenges their preferred beliefs. One that didn’t appear to be listed was “misrepresentation of what another said in order to attack them”. This seems to be a particularly frequent reaction from feminists, who don’t take the trouble to read carefully but instead knee-jerkingly categorize others’ viewpoints as “misogynist”, “right wing”, “condoning of violence” and so forth.
Unfortunately, such ad hominem attacks do work in many ways. Having my writing falsely represented and falsely labelled as misogynist by a senior, powerful colleague will discourage referral sources to me and cause significant damage and financial loss to my career.
I didn’t mean to belittle the pain caused to you in your situation vis a vis feminist Neville Robertson as you describe here –
I merely wish to communicate the idea that more and more people are waking up to the dreadful fraud he and his kind have been perpetuating which we work diligently to expose here.
I hope that such events aren’t detracting from you having your share of merriment this Christmas and look forward to our further collaboration of the coming New Year.
But nothing! You complain about vitriol whereas I complain about your contribution to my children almost being killed by their mother. FFS Sort your priorities Ms Robertson!
It’s amazing how you choose to overlook the obvious.
You’re supposed to be an expert in social sciences yet remain resolutely quiet about such research as this which was presented to the American Association of Psychologists –
275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.
That’s a very long-winded academic way of saying you choose to overlook the fact obvious to so many of us that in addition to lashing out with impunity at menfolk , women by the thousand every day across the anglosphere including NZ, use the state to aggress against their partners on their behalf.
Only you’ve been so busy drumming up business for your chivalric feminist programs that you’ve completely missed the misandric picture, indeed just added your own brush strokes to it.
And you have the nerve to turn up here and try to sell your feminist snake oil then wonder why you’re met with hostility and ridicule!
I don’t recall calling you misogynist. I did use that word to describe the argument that (a) Mead’s belief that his wife was unfaithful, (b) her staying out at night (c) various “troubling texts” and (d) that she was apparently planning to take her daughter with her when she left were all “sources of provocation.” In my opinion, that line of arguemnet is anti woman because in my experience, it is used predominantly to justify violence against women. (I do appreciate however that in your posting of November 9 you specifically said that you did not condone Mead’s violence.)
To repeat. I was applying the adjective to the proposition you were advancing, not to you. I do not believe that my use of the word in question was libellous. Of course, if you feel otherwise, you should consult a solicitor.
I appreciate that you are not obliged to answer questions from me but I do wonder what readers of this pubiic list will think when you consistently fail to provide any evidence for your claim that one man dies every 12 weeks in this country at the hands of his partner or ex-partner.
Neville, I was wondering if you want to be part of the solution rather than fighting over ‘what reflects NZ’ers’. It’s not like you’re completely wrong for a certain sector, lol.
But if you’re just here to shit stir, then you are no use to the ground people who visit this site. I myself have taken all I need from online men and I’ve mixed it with real life fathers and mothers as well as many groups that are involved in the governments steering groups.
If you want to help men in the real world, we welcome you. (as all men)
Ooops, forgot to give my email address: [email protected]
Neville Roberts says –
Yet more woolly thinking from the man who’s thesis supports feminist shibboleths like the mythical rule of thumb.
Let’s do a simple logic quiz, shall we?
This is one you can give to 12 and 13 year old students to see whether they’ve moved into conceptual consequential thinking or are still concrete thinkers .
1. Someone who advanced a racist proposition is a _ _ cist.
2. Someone who advances a socialist proposition is a soc _ _ _ ist.
3. Someone who advances an environmental proposition is an
env_ _ronmental_ _ t.
now Neville, think REALLY hard about this one OK?
4. Someone who advances a misogynist proposition is a misogyni_ _.
So you were saying something about NOT accusing Hans of being misogynist.
For the record I believe you are a misandrist.
1 in 4
1 in 4
1 in 4…….
Item 35 is VERY familiar to you.
It looks like someone read your 1 in 4 women, rule of thumb patriarchy men are bad thesis! LOL!
Interesting item 35, eh?
Mind you, so are the other 49 items!
I see that we have yet to get an explanation of the one man dies every 12 weeks claim made in the original article. The failure to provide evidence of this raises questions of credibility.
Imagine what would happen in other public debates if a political leader repeatedly declined to provide evidence to suppoort a claim. For example, how would we feel about a Prime Minister who claimed that the income gap between New Zealand and Australia had closed when the published data said it had widened – and when challenged, such a Prime Minister said I’ll explain it only if the opposition apologises to me.
Personally, I find leaders more credible when their claims are backed by evidence. Or, as sometimes happens, they say “Sorry, I mis-read that statistic – the real figure is more like…”
And in the spirit of providing evidence, let me comment on Skeptik’s posting about a “1 in 4 women” “rule”. I’m not exactly sure what Skeptik is referring to here but perhaps it is the life-time incidence of partner violence. Is that right? If so, I can provide some evidence, this time from the 2006 victims of crime survey. (http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/n/nz-crime-safety-survey-2006-technical-report/publication)
The authors report violence under 4 categories, for both women and men.
“Assault” at the hands of a partner was reported by 14% of partnered men and 23% of partnered women.
“Threats of force” were reported by 10% of men and 22% of women.
“Threats to damage property” were reported by 7% of men and 18% of women.
“Damage to property” was reported by 7% of men and 18% of women.
Putting all 4 categories together, 21% of men and 30% women reported at least one of these forms of violence from a partner at least once.
What all this means is not altogether clear. These data do not say anything about the frequency of the violence. They do not say anything about the meaning of the acts for the parties involved. Crucially, they do not say anything about the impact of the violence. However, if one goes with this fairly broad definition of violence, then the 1 in 4 estimate seems a little low for (partnered) women but close for partnered men.
I look forward to Hans’ explanation of his claim.
Apparently a recap and some elucidation is in order.
Your hectoring of Hans and provision of ‘statistical analysis’ would carry some weight if it wasn’t the result of so much gerrymandering feminist ‘research’.
Small sample sizes, dubious questions and uncorroborated self reporting don’t make for objective research.
They make for an apparent lucrative career during strange times however.
Still no word from you about the many thousands of taxpayer’s dollars you would have received for enacting conflict of interest through reviewing your very own social action baby – Hamilton Abuse Intervention Program with the lesbian feminist ‘expert on men’s issues’ Co-ordinator of the program no less!
Then there’s Julie Whitehouse’s excellent point that statistics aren’t gathered for the crime of “female assaults male” but ONLY vice versa.
It seems YOU are the one who should be explaining yourself.
I have read the part of your submitted doctoral thesis where you promote anti-male violence by hate crime in perpetuating the myth that in English common law it was OK in days gone by for a man to beat his partner so long as the rod was no thicker than his thumb (rule of thumb feminist shibboleth).
That claim of yours is deeply offensive to men, to English people and to the population of NZ at large.
Having seen no retraction and apology ANYWHERE from you of such a hateful claim it seems safe to conclude that ANY ‘research’ you throw up is only going to reflect such hatefulness.
Hence my thinking you are misandric.
My continued reference to ‘1 in 4’ relates to the ridiculous ill-founded claims of feminist Miriam Saphira’s that 1 in 4 women in NZ have experienced sexual violence.
(Miniscule sample sizes of less than 0.01% of the total adult female population extrapolated to ALL NZ womenfolk and ALL self reporting – in brief, bullshit victimology)
It’s a claim I’ve seen you promoting as VALID to THOUSANDS of NZ students.
Likewise seeing your wholesale investment in promoting awareness only of violence by men against women and not vice versa through use of the terribly gynocentric one-sided and thus thoroughly debunked Duluth power and control wheel discredits you even further.
Then there’s the matter of folks associated with social service organizations who feel thwarted in attempts to get appropriate services for male in place in a zeitgeist that is so anti male saying you are a feminist bully, AND no response from you to that.
Apparently they aren’t even worthy of a reply.
The very simple rational question I posed earlier goes unanswered by you too.
When you say someone’s argument is misogynist it amounts to saying they are misogynist, yet you seem incapable of admitting such accusation.
Personally I have no doubt that in your gemeinschaft I’m seen as being misogynist.
Decades of experience and massive amounts of feedback from other men tells me that’s a common reaction against those advancing human rights for men coming from those with a feminist worldview.
Your presence here is useful however.
It serves to enlighten readers further about the machinations of feminist oppression.
It seems to me that this thread has devolved into a tit-for-tat bicker largely between – as I think I have understood this thread – two registered psychologists, one backed by two or more regular contributors to this site.
OMG!!!! The whole world must be pissing themselves laughing, as this schoolgirl scrap turns into a ‘I’m not apologising unless he apologises first’! diatribe.
I only hope I never meet either of you – and especially you, Mr Robertson, in Court!
I think you are partly right Back from the dead. This has got to a ridiculous stage. For the record, I’d like to point out that only one party is taking the stance of demanding an apology before answering what I thought was a fair question. Nevertheless, I think your general point is a valid one. It seems pointless to continue to expect that Hans Laven will provide some evidence for his claim so I will stop asking him.
Hi, Back from the dead.
I think you’re partly right too.
This has got to a ridiculous stage.
I point out that only one party is taking the stance of refusing to respond to many different posters and their many challenges to make himself accountable for his misandric, unpatriotic and anglophobic actions.
It seems pointless to continue to expect Neville Robertson will provide any reasonable response to challenges made to him (misandry, bullying, statistical chicanery, fraudulent usurping of public funds) so we WILL keep asking him AND place him on misandry watch in the meantime.
I agree with you.
You wouldn’t want to meet Mr Roberts in court!
Especially the feminist ‘courts’ and the jurisprudence he’s so fond of incubating and nurturing therein.
There’s a whole lot more to come out about our Mr Robertson, but for now there’s plenty for folks to get their teeth into, and this being the festive season where many folks are preoccupied all that can wait for another day.
Seasons greetings to you!
L.O.L…….Pardon? your comment the ‘vitriol continues’…That comment is your usual feminist spin doctoring
…..Well try this one Mr Neville Robertson for ‘vitriol’ attitude….Take your your vile and evil Kiwi'[abuse removed by moderator] i’ feminist crap and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine….!!!!!
Now go away Mr Kiwi [abuse removed by moderator] ..And go and complain to the ministry of the [abuse removed by moderator] women’s affairs in Wellington…
I agree Skeptik that expecting a feminist supporter to applogize for their conduct is an unrealistic thing, however like most feminist supporters Mr. Robertson obviously has no thought to how his actions will eventually backlash on him.
It’s just a matter of time before Mr. Robertson or someone he cares about will one day be made a victim of the very system he is helping to perpetuate. Sooner or later either he himself, his brothers (if he has any), a friend, an uncle or any of the other numerous people he associates with (male and female) will fall victim to the feminist orientated system that he supports so wholeheartedly. Sooner or later he himself will have to stand powerless while well loved children of a friend or relative are torn away from their father through false accusations. Sooner or later he will be forced to see the effects of income strip-mining through the scam known as child support as friends or relatives are forced to live on the poverty line while an ex partner lives it up. Sooner or later he will see friends or relatives accused of violence he knows they didn’t commit, and perhaps even imprisoned because of it. Sooner or later he will stand by powerless while the family court blatantly destroys the life of a friend or relative with decisions that are obviously biased against the father. If he is extra unlucky he may even have to face the effects of feminist induced suicide as friends or relatives come to the conclusion that ending their own life is a preferable option than living in the world he helped support.
The only way that Mr. Robertson and others like him can avoid the outcomes above is if they have no friends and relatives, other than that it is simply a matter of time before he learns from his own experience what many of us have already come to know; that men are second class citizens in New Zealand and are routinely treated in ways that are against the edicts of international human rights laws. Until then, like all feminists, he will continue to hide behind questionable statistics and “facts” created with political agendas (more commonly known as propaganda), and false beliefs that are easily disproved with genuine investigation (more commonly known as delusions).
“No man is an island.” Is a well known proverb, and it’s time that feminists (male and female) came to realise this. By hurting men they are in fact hurting themselves as well.
My apology for the delay in responding. I have been on holiday and away from internet access.
In almost every reply I have assured that I will discuss partner homicide statistics when the matter of your derogatory misrepresentation of my writing has been resolved. Yet you state ‘I take it, then, that you are not going to address the issue of the basis for your claim”¦’ and ‘It seems pointless to continue to expect that Hans Laven will provide some evidence for his claim so I will stop asking him’. Your misrepresentation of my true position here can only be deliberate, surely?
In fact, I look forward to providing the evidence for my initial reference to the approximate rate of partner homicide by women. However, I will not jump to the demands of someone who subjects me to the violence you have shown. Your communications amount to cyber bullying, and I would imagine your advice to others who are being bullied would not be ‘just submit to the bully’s demands’.
So where have we got to so far in addressing your patronizing campaign to damage my reputation in public? Let’s see”¦ Firstly, you labelled my writing ‘a familiar misogynist argument’ without offering any reasoning. When challenged to explain your slur, you then repeatedly claimed I had forwarded an argument that ‘leaving a relationship amounted to provocation for murder’ and that was what you had seen as misogynist. You ignored my challenge of your claim that the argument was ‘familiar’ at all. It took several responses from me pointing out that I had made no such argument before you finally desisted with your fabrication and took the trouble to read my post attentively. You then discovered that I had not made the argument at all, but you were not honourable enough to admit your mistake. Instead, on 27/12/10 you simply changed your story to claim instead that you had used the word misogynist in relation to the actual arguments I had forwarded (or at least, your somewhat misleading summary of those arguments). In addition, you repeated your dishonest portrayal of my position on discussing the issue of partner homicide statistics and further, you implied that I had accused you of calling me (rather than my arguments) misogynist, something I have never done.
Surely you must recognize the violence in your behaviour: derogatory labelling of my work as ‘misogynist’ to belittle me in public, demanding that I meet your wishes promptly and attempting to ridicule me when I don’t, demeaning my opinions through misrepresenting them, ignoring my statements and disrespecting my concerns about your dishonest portrayals of me. The Duluth Power and Control Wheel includes the following behaviours that it defines as violence: ‘putting her down, calling her names, playing mind games, humiliating her, making light of the abuse and not taking her concerns about it seriously, saying the abuse didn’t happen, shifting responsibility for abusive behaviour’. Well Neville, your behaviour fits these descriptions except that the victim in this case is a ‘him’ rather than a ‘her’. And you are of course a much more powerful figure so your violent behaviour amounts to an abuse of power. My guess is that you will see your violence as justified because it is in support of the very important cause of particular concern to you, but isn’t that the same belief that underlies most interpersonal violence? Quite frankly, this dispute would not continue if you stuck to non-violent, respectful, honest communication.
Your revised reasoning on 27/12/10 in trying to justify your derogatory put down of my writing is now that it was ‘anti woman’ (is that the same as misogynist?) to suggest that some of the behaviour confronting Greg Meads may have been provocative because ‘that line of argument’ is ‘used predominantly to justify violence against women’. Well really Neville, that’s very poor reasoning. Murderous and other violent female partners will allege diminished responsibility due to a history of domestic violence at the hands of their victim. Under your reasoning we would routinely dismiss all such claims as ‘anti men’ simply because they are predominantly used to justify women’s violence against men. Surely, however, sometimes such claims by violent women will have validity, and details and evidence will be important in considering their relevance? In the Meads case there was good evidence that his victim had been plotting, contrary to her face-to-face assurances of a fair and amicable separation process, to bring Mr Meads down, to leave him f****d when she was finished, and that she was being encouraged behind his back to leave him with nothing but a pile of his clothes on the floor. It would be obvious to any fair-minded reader that men and women alike might be provoked into irrational responses by such discoveries. Even simply discovering that a partner is having sex with others has motivated women to attack and even to murder the partner, and most reasonable people would show some understanding (as opposed to acceptance) of their reactions.
Do you now intend to stand by your slur in labelling my writing as misogynist, or will you admit your error in having done so? Either way, it would seem that will be about as much resolution as we are likely to achieve on this particular matter in this forum.
‘Back from the dead’: I regret that you find the conflict that has developed in this thread to be so unpalatable. But I was subjected to a serious slur in relation to my post, and it seems to me I have two options in response: either put up with that abuse or challenge it. As an assertive person I have chosen the latter, and I don’t accept that doing so deserves to be seen as immature. I would welcome your suggestions as to how I might deal with the situation better.
I would note, however, that the current debate is useful on MENZ to explore feminist reasoning and as a nice demonstration of feminists’ verbal and emotional violence towards anyone who dares to express an opinion they don’t like.
Well done and thank-you standing up to cyber bullying indeed.
You outline the kind of process I’ve seen Neville Robertson use to silence many good people so that his views can hold sway.
I notice you have had no comeback to the evidence presented for disseminating of anglophobic misandry – 1 in 4 NZ women have been sexually abused blah blah, NZ is a patriarchy blah blah, English common law permitted a man to thrash his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb blah blah. And for your frequent conflicts of interest dips into the public purse to ‘independently evaluate’ with the program’s very own co-ordinator no less! a program you yourself spawned in the first place!
Indeed comeback is impossible when you’ve placed all the evidence on public record.
Besides which there’s plenty more both offline and online to dig up AND plenty already archived lest it suddenly and mysteriously ‘disappear’.
Thankfully there’s also the VERY astute point made by Mr Anonymous.
Wise, wise words indeed from him.
It’s only a matter of time before the very misandry which over the decades and to this day you continue to promote naively yet very diligently, bites you personally on the ass.
Indeed with the terrible social forment your beloved feminism creates, and as insulated as you are in your feminist ivory tower enclave, I dare say you’re being impacted without even being aware of it.
I’d launch into explanation, but I’m afraid until the many mistakes you’ve committed on this thread alone are rectified it’d be a waste of time.
I have given Neville Robertson ample opportunity to provide justification for his allegation that in my initial post for this thread I made a ‘familiar misogynist argument’. It will clear to any intelligent reader that he has not been able to justify his initial slur, and his slipping and sliding to avoid responsibility for his statements was strong evidence that it was always simply a condescending verbal violence designed to damage the reputation of someone whose facts and reasoning he did not like. Having established this beyond any reasonable doubt (I welcome any reasoned argument in rebuttal), I am happy to discuss the issue of partner homicide statistics as Mr Robertson requested. (If I had done so earlier, this may have left his slur unexplored and holding some unwarranted assumed credibility.)
I have collected news articles over the last 18 months or so. My collection will not be comprehensive. Here are six homicides apparently committed by women against male intimate partners from the time I started seriously collecting articles at the beginning of June 2009 to the time I wrote this post on 24 October, i.e. one every 12.142857142857142 weeks. Is that close enough to class as ‘about every 12 weeks’? In fact, in the one-year period dating from June 2009 one man was killed by a female intimate partner every 8.5 weeks.
1. Woman Charged Over Napier Death
2. Partner Charged After Man Dies of Stab Wounds
3. Woman Arrested After Man Shot Dead
4. Woman Accused of Assault After Man’s Death
5. Bail For Gisborne Murder Accused
6. Orewa Murder Accused Bailed
The period included at least one additional case that was not so clear but I believe also involved the killing of a male by a female intimate partner. This would bring the rate up to one killing every 10.4 weeks for the period between June 2009 and October 2010, or one killing every 7.3 weeks for the one-year period from June 2009.
7. Man’s Death After Fight Sparks Homicide Enquiry
I came across other homicides for which I could find no further public information about the likely offender, and it’s possible that one or more of them was caused by a female intimate partner.
I think it reasonable to assume that other partner homicides were committed or brought about
by women but police in their wisdom chose to pin it on a male (as they did, for example, in the Kahui twins case) or, in the case of apparent accidents, not to investigate further. Failure to hold women offenders as accountable as men for their crimes is widespread in NZ law , law enforcement, and justice systems.
Of course, my original argument in the posting does not rely on any particular number as long as it’s over zero. Even if it were one male death every 100 weeks, that still would not justify any police spokesperson failing to mention it as though unimportant when a female death rate is given.
It is interesting that the Dept of Justice (as I recall) previously collated and published partner homicide statistics based on gender but has not done so for some years now. The only figures I have been able to locate recently are from police and include a disclaimer that they are only provisional figures of no proper status. I can’t help but suspect this has been a deliberate ploy to protect male-demonizing propaganda from inconvenient facts. After all, numerous government departments and state-funded organizations promote feminist campaigns that perpetuate a belief that only women are significantly victimized by domestic violence, and indeed that men’s need for protection from violence in wider society is so trivial as to be undeserving of mention.
It’s interesting also that the figures published by police and in occasional feminist-slanted journal articles don’t seem consistent with what we see happening through news media. Of course, the number of such homicides can be expected to vary considerably from year to year. The last figures that I understand were based on reliable data showed a rate of just over 3 ‘intentional murders’ by women of heterosexual intimate partners per year from 1988 to 1995 (Anderson, 1997), and one assumes that the figure would have been considerably higher had it included all partner homicides by women rather than just ‘intentional murders’.
It’s clear that partner violence by men against women is several times more serious in outcome (though not in frequency) than that by women against men, and deserves special targeting in efforts to reduce violence. I’m sure it will be true also that men more often than women act with intention to cause death or very serious injury to partners or ex-partners, but the extent to which that is so is unclear. Much of the difference in outcome seriousness will be due to the fact that, as is the case for suicide and most physical activities, men tend to be more effective whereas women who intend to maim or kill are less often successful.
Regardless, how can it be fair or sensible for any responsible spokesperson or for any anti-violence campaign to ignore totally the less serious (on average) yet still significant violence by female partners, and indeed to ignore men as the predominant victims of violence in society generally?
Anderson T. Murder between sexual intimates in New Zealand 1988-1995. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington; 1997 (Quoted in Goodyear-Smith F. Response to the ‘Woman Bites Dog’ article on domestic violence. J NZ Medical Association, 118 (1226), November 2005)
By the way, I have copies of every news article linked in this reply. I have noticed that some articles of importance to men’s issues disappear especially after I have linked them in past MENZ posts. Generally I am more skeptic than conspiracy theorist but I do suspect a conspiracy here; after all, we are dealing with a sophisticated and powerful political movement that trades in unbalanced and sometimes false propaganda and even has its own government department! So, just in case, should anyone in future read this thread and find any of the links broken, just contact the author for the original articles.
You turn up on this thread asking why folks think you’re misandric and I have previously given you PART of the answer as is archived above.
But apart from those matters ((misandric hate speech, intellectual and emotional bullying, statistical chicanery, fraudulent usurping of public funds)which constitute action on your part there is another aspect to your misandry which people are growing aware of.
You are PAID BY THE TAXPAYER to be a professional and supposedly expert researcher, teacher and adviser on matters pertaining to social psychology in NZ. As such you are supposed to abreast of social issues, indeed supposed to provide useful insights into social problems through following trends with rigorous research.
In relation to men and their situation in NZ (and thereby by extension in relation to all of NZ socially) I think many would agree with me that you have abjectly failed in that regard.
You have in essence been hugely derelict in your duty to do the very job you were assigned to and for which you are handsomely paid many times more than the average wage each week.
I’m aware that’s a very serious and sweeping statement, so I will provide SOME more detailed brushwork.
Please bear in mind however, what I’m about to write is by no means an exhaustive list of those serious issues NZ men (and as I said by extension NZ society) face you have CHOSEN to overlook which leads one to the conclusion of your dereliction of duty to the people of New Zealand.
Whilst you been assiduously pushing the feminist party line you have failed to be –
* working towards abolishing alimony and unjust levels of ‘child’ ‘support’ meted out to fathers which render countless children institutionally fatherless.
* ensuring equal father custody of children
* supporting mandatory paternity testing
* supporting the male contraceptive pill
* supporting jail terms for false assault and rape accusers that are equal to those meted out to assaulters and rapists
* supporting full public disclosure of rape accuser identities
For someone so ardently vocal in support of women as a special interest group the next part of this short list will be most sadly ironic –
* teaching young women to shoulder equal burdens and responsibilities as men (who do not receive anywhere near the levels of state support/privilege that women en masse not only get, but now take for granted)
* teaching young women how to produce more than they consume
* challenging Women’s Studies and Feminist Research schools which routinely teach young women how to distort history, avoid accountability, evade responsibility, lie to themselves and their loved ones about almost everything they ‘need’, thereby producing narcissistic, self-rationalizing women who think nothing of exploiting legal privilege to break the spirits, backs, balls and bank accounts of hard-working, loving men who make the world sufficiently prosperous, comfortable and safe for women to be able to actually go to college in the first place.
Then sit back and let ‘equality’ come rolling in on the next wave of state-sponsored wage inflation, sociological distortions and cultural misandry.
Of course many of us in the movement for humanitarian treatment of males would be delighted to see you change course and join us.
We recognize however that after many decades of gynocentric focus that’s a huge challenge for you.
In several ways 2011 is shaping up to be a watershed year for us.
Increasing numbers of men are consciously going John Galt, becoming MGTOW, becoming part of the invisible nation, leaving NZ and thereby rendering NZ a less vibrant and viable place.
These matters are plainly obvious to many of us, however I don’t expect that’s easily visible from within the sanctum of academia where much speech is censored for the sake of grades and much ‘knowledge’ comes second hand through books in any case.
I see the biggest challenge for you therefore is to step outside the cozy familiar confines of your present life, get out more and talk to men ON THE GROUND.
Not men in conference rooms, especially not men from the little world of feminism, but men on the street, and not just a handful of men either.
Do as some of us here have done (and to their great credit continue to do)over the years in NZ.
Talk to MANY THOUSANDS of men IN PERSON about their lives.
I promise you academic ‘knowledge’ will begin to jar and an unsettling and startlingly different picture will emerge whereby views expressed on this website will increasingly make sense.
Mind you that will probably be painful for you (as it has been for many of us)so take care.
2011 might just be the year you re-enter the flow of humanity instead of being swamped as you have been here.
A watershed year indeed.
No, sir. Others are asking YOU for an apology and for your justifications for the harm you do THEM. As always you ignore them.
There are countless victims of all sorts of abuse who are marginalised into oblivion by your agenda and that of the decades old establishment of which you are a part.
Why will you not justify yourself to those you hurt? Why can’t you explain to them why they should be refused help, laughed at, called liars?
Oh, by the way…
‘Staggering’ report shows 41 Kiwis killed by family
The twelve male deaths in 2009 is one per month. The average of six mentioned would be one every eight or so weeks.
I would also point out that, if other factors conform, the 2009 figures almost certainly indicate that the majority of the murders were perpetrated by women.
The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s report can be found at http://www.fvdrc.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagescm/7637/$File/fvdrc-annualreport-09.pdf
On the one hand, it is folly to assume all men were killed by female partners / ex pertners etc; it would also be follow to assume they were all killed by males.
Likewise, it is folly to assume all women were killed by males. Similar assumptions regarding the murder/murderess’s gender regarding the child victims is also not stated in this report.
41 deaths in 2009 may be a blip; or an alarming upward trend. the totals for 2006-2008 were 25, 26 & 19 family-violence related deaths.
With regards to http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/learning-from-tragedy/index.html, quote:
“Learning from Tragedy: Homicide within Families in New Zealand 2002-2006
This report provides the first complete picture of homicide within families in New Zealand. It found that there were 141 homicides perpetrated by a member of the victim’s family, intimate partner or ex-partner in New Zealand between 2002 and 2006 and that:
“¢Of the 141 deaths, 77 were couple-related homicides, 38 were child homicides and 26 were other family member homicides.
“¢On average there were 28 deaths from homicide within families per year over the five year period (fewer than eight of the victims were children each year).
“¢More of the victims were female (88) than male (53), however the perpetrators were overwhelmingly male, with 121 perpetrators male and only 28 female.
“¢There was a strong association between neighbourhood deprivation and homicides within families with higher numbers of homicides occurring in deprived neighbourhoods.
“¢There were 58 MÃ„Âori, 51 New Zealand European, 17 Pacific peoples and 15 Asian victims.
“¢Fifty-two of the perpetrators or suspected perpetrators were MÃ„Âori, 62 New Zealand European, 18 Pacific peoples, 12 Asian and 5 of unknown ethnicity.”
With reference to Learning from Tragedy: Homicide within Families in New Zealand 2002-2006 (available from the above link), Quote:
There were 74 couple-related homicide events with 77 adult victims and 79 perpetrators in the five-year period between 2002 and 2006.
Seventy of the perpetrators were male and nine were female. The victims of the male perpetrators included 60 women, who were their partners or ex-partners, and 10 men, who perpetrators perceived as their ex-partners’ new partners.
Only two of the women perpetrators acted on their own; the remaining seven killed in association with a male or another female perpetrator. ”
I don’t like the latter comment – it appears to endeavour to diminish the full responsbility of the seven women; whereas it doesn’t appear to diminish the responsbility of the men.
Haha, you make me understand why there needs to be separate groups for men and women. I’ve just accepted to speak about something in front of someone important but I’m now having second thoughts.
Yes, of course Neville looks to be a traitor of men for speaking up for women in a gender war but doesn’t that mean women are wrong to speak up for men? Aren’t they also traitors?
You have a warped way of seeing women in this. It’s not as easy as saying, “Hey women, get with the program – you are no longer dependent on men and they are no longer responsible for you”. Believe me – women are working this out very well already considering they’ve got thousands of years of thinking to change. They’re doing a fantastic job really, I mean, they’ve worked hard and I mean really hard to change evolution. You should really give credit where credit is due.
I’ve noticed you and I have done things opposite. You’ve done all the workshops and presentations and now focus on men with money while I grew up with money [as a priority] and am now focusing on the workshops and presentations.
Money is something that harms both men and women. Having a good career that brings in wealth in time is also across the board. Both men and women rip off the opposite sex because they can. Both men and women use hitmen and hitwomen to take away their problems, because they can. Both men and women set up other men and women to harm their enemies because they can.
If it was possible to believe the extremists are humanists I would, but I know they’re not.
regarding the first part of your post, if you’d actually read my comment accurately you’d see I’m saying Neville Roberts is doing a disservice to BOTH sexes, his profession and the people of New Zealand.
As for the rest of your post I haven’t the foggiest notion what you’re going on about.
I’d don’t know what to say. I just don’t think the same way but I’ll work on understanding why men do.
My like for you is immeasurable but I need to question whether you yourself have talked to thousands of men. I’ve talked to easily hundreds but they don’t say what you do but then they don’t say what Neville does either.
I don’t know the answer but I have faith you guys will figure it out and make a better place for everyone. 🙂
PS. I think maybe men speak differently to women so we might never get to know what you’re really about anymore than men will get to understand women. Maybe the personal being the political was the right idea.
Skeptic, if I told you what gays in leadership positions, women from National Women’s Org and women in refuges thought as well as all National movements put in place you’d see they all back you.
A good modern community person would be thankful to the Nevilles of the world for bringing the money in but feel sorry for him because he’s really just a dollar bill. The moment something better can bring the money in, is the day he’s dumped and his reputation will suffer – but he got lots of money and lots of powerful feelings so he’s been paid well.
Unfortunately, you make it out like it’s going to be a men’s moment while that’s far from the truth. Neville and his like had their part to play and they’re not losers for it. Even though they lobbied a lie, they lobbied for resources to help dysfunctional families.
They are kept in the cold quite a bit when it comes to the ground as one would expect and I wouldn’t mind them learning from different cultures because even though they think English men must be taken down as in Western Culture, there’s every other culture wishing to have the things western culture has. In fact, men’s refuges exist in New Zealand but they come under culture. It’s really sad actually.
Just keep staying strong. 🙂
you say :
Again I’ve no idea what you’re talking about with that statement.
You go on to say :
That just strikes me as ridiculous because when you lump together all the negative effects of feminism the NET COST to NZ has been astronomical. So in my view a good community wouldn’t have someone like Neville Robertson in a position of influence over any social programs and social policy to begin with.
I refer to him as an Anglophobe and misandric type over his spreading malicious feminist lies that it was English common law that a man could beat his wife if the rod used were no thicker than his thumb.
You’ll notice he’s gone VERY quiet about that because there’s no evidence to back that ridiculous hateful claim which is actually to his shame part of his doctoral thesis. So here’s a guy getting paid by the taxpayer to spread anti-English hatred. That’s someone creating social dysfunction.
As for the rest of your post, again it makes no sense to me, indeed it’s hard to see it’s relevance to dealing with feminist con men like Mr Roberts.
Despite the phrase being in common use since the 17th century and appearing many thousands of times in print, there are no printed records that associate it with domestic violence until the 1970s, when the notion was castigated by feminists. The responses that circulated then, which assumed the wife-beating law to be true, may have been influenced by Gillray’s cartoon or were possibly a reaction to The Rolling Stones’ song ‘Under My Thumb’, which was recorded in 1966.
Neville Robertson’s man hating rule of thumb
Thanks for the interesting post.
I’ve reposted this link in case you missed it earlier in the thread.
Thanks for that link Skeptik. Yes I did miss it earlier :p
I am concerned about Neville Robertson perpetuating feminist lies. I am left asking myself;
Did Neville Robertson deliberately lie or are his research skills inadequate?
Lol, I can imagine I’m looking to be all over the place right now. I’ve given more thought to it all and I think back to basics would be a good place for me to be right now.
I’ve got quite a bit to take on board at the moment and I’m sure I’ll be focusing well before the end of January.
Thanks for that “Back from the dead”. You might be interested in the paper I am about to post on MENZ in which I discuss the second study to which you refer and partner homicide research generally.
By the way, death seems to be a welcome escape for many men from our male-denigrating social milieu. What stimulated you to come back from it?
Given the names I have been called on this list, not to mention the false allegations that have been made against me(e.g. that I have got rich on domestic violence) describing your argument as misogynist and asking for the source of your one man in twelve weeks claim seems incredibly mild and well short of your claim of cyberbullying.
I invite you to move beyond the you-said, I-said (two could play that game) and, in the spirit of more rational debate, address my original question.
Name-calling and allegations by a few unknown contributors to a men’s movement internet discussion group will be no skin off your nose, whereas having a senior figure in my profession refer to my writing as misogynist represents a very real assault to my reputation and interests. I would still like you to withdraw and apologize because you have not been able to provide any reasonable case in justification of it. While I put forward information and views that may be rebellious to current orthodoxy and political correctness, I consider myself very fair-minded and my wording is usually carefully chosen to express my views accurately. I am confident that I have no generalized hatred toward women and I have not expressed any, and you certainly have not provided any evidence to support your claim.
Nevertheless, as promised I have already addressed your question, on 2 January (below). This thread has become quite temporally disjointed with the many sub-threads running through it.
You appear to live in a completely different orbit to others who post here.
Yes, you stand accused of things you choose to call false.
Yes, you’ve been called some names in courser language than I’d use, but the fact remains you chose to come here and start the name calling process in the first place by ridiculously trying to label a good friend and ally Hans Levin misogynist. Ironic indeed therefore that clearly it escapes you how your pedaling your misandric and Anglophobic bile damages women.
I see your bullying ways have been thoroughly stood up to but I’m afraid your still DEEP in woman-pedestalizing denial.
Notably nobody here except you seems to object to the idea of using the word rich to describe your benefiting from Domestic Violence services.
To be fair it is a relative term.
So perhaps from your gilded gates you don’t feel rich.
I think it’s fair to say this I think compared to MANY hardworking New Zealanders you’ve grown very rich (like I said previously receiving a salary many times the average NZer)through fraudulent means, by both demonizing men and double dipping in the process.
Why you think it’s worth turning up here to hector folks when it just leads to you being made to look a bigger and bigger fool is beyond me, as it seems your ‘research’ into domestic violence is farcical and easily shown up even by enthusiastic amateurs here on this very thread.
How you get away with promoting such bilge says allot about New Zealand, especially it’s social sciences academia.
Good grief I’ve only skimmed your doctoral thesis and it looks shonky already.
Really, I reckon if you had any sense you’d call it a day as you’re way out of your depth.
Hoist in your own petard.
Fat lot of good that does for those who pay their taxes only to be laughed at by the recipients of those resources.
Innocent human beings have died because of Robertson and his ilk. They will continue to do so. But lets not worry about that shall we. Somebody else got some bickies after all.
Denied help. Denied justice. Denied even acknowledgement. Dehumanised, their very humanity stripped from them by liars and bigots and empire builders.
That’s right, julie, Neville’s a winner. Just look at all those people he helped. Pity about all those he sacrificed on the alter of his obtusely gendered ideology along the way.
Don’t shed a tear for them. Don’t help them. If they rear their ugly heads mock them. If they won’t go away scream “Liar, liar, pants on fire” at them till they get the message that they’re not wanted nor welcome. It’s OK, they are disposable after all.
Sorry, Skeptic, posted in the wrong spot.
I’m looking for a totally different apology thanks.
I’m asking on behalf of victims in Australia and New Zealand, many of whom I call friends. He has acted for many years to harm them and he needs to explain himself.
Enough is enough. We want answers. And they’d better be awesome.
What I find funny is that I get the phone call to stand infront of the mayor and propose a men’s refuge. Not you, not Skeptic, not any man who comes to this site and moans and blames everyone else for lack of men’s support.
And I can see it now. 3 men and Julie walk into the office, the mayor says, “Go for it, what’s your plan?” and all eyes will be on me once again to do the work.
I don’t get to moan and blame for even the women will say to me, “Here is what you need to do” or “Come help us work this out”.
Why is this happening Gwallan? How come men WON’T do something?
The way I see it, if men are concerned for men, then they’ll get off their but and help men out. It’s not all on Neville’s shoulders, nor mine, nor any other woman’s.
Y’know, if 2011 is to be men’s year, then men are going to need to make it so and it’s going to take more than online awareness.
Thank you Hans, that is very helpful. My sceptism about your claim came from my reading of the data someone else had posted in support of your claim. That data was restricted, as I understand it, to cases “cleared” as murder, which of course accounts for only some of the deaths.
So thank you for your explanation. It makes perfect sense to me. Whichever way we look at it, too many men, too many women and too many children are dying in the context of domestic violence.
Neville writes –
That’s it Neville?
That’s all you’ve got to offer after trashing the man’s professional reputation with your comment that he’s promoting misogyny?
Here’s a question for you, and since your in the habit of starting fights with name calling then squealing when you hear others calling you names they believe apply to you in return it’s a loaded one – how cold and insensitive can you be?
Oh, wait a moment.
We know the answer to that one already – “patriarchy, 1 in 4, arrest men on mere suspicion, harumph, harumph…….)
I couldn’t care less whether it’s a man, a woman, or a one legged camel riding a skateboard who gets the phone call from the mayor to propose setting up a refuge for men.
The mayor will undoubtedly have their own political reasons why you’d be chosen for such a role,
so be careful there.
Don’t knock online awareness either.
To do so is daft.
It’s not just awareness either, it’s online communication leading to change of thought patterns (attitudes) leading to change of behavior eventually.
So no need to be so precious.
And just about EVERYBODY is online these days…….even technology spurning hippies and freaky ludites……and increasingly so as things go mobile.
Lol, ANNND lots of study is being done on men these days. I also think the complaining is important it’s just better coming from men than me.
Your comparison between your abusive put-down of my writing and things others in this discussion group have subsequently written concerning you is simply an attempt to minimize and rationalize your own violence. And I have heard better reasoning in similar attempts towards the same end from men in prison violence-prevention groups that I facilitated.
I am not responsible for what other people in a discussion group write. But you are responsible for statements you make publicly.
Excerpts from the CODE OF ETHICS For Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/ New Zealand, 2002
1.1. General Respect:
Psychologists respect the dignity of persons and peoples with whom they relate in their work and are sensitive to their welfare, and rights.
1.1.1. In their professional relationships psychologists are respectful of those with whom they interact.
1.1.4. Psychologists use language that conveys respect for the dignity of others in all written or verbal communication. (This includes avoidance of demeaning descriptions or comments.)
Psychologists recognise that all persons and peoples are entitled to
equal benefits from the contributions of psychology.
1.2.3. Psychologists seek to avoid, or refuse to participate in, practises that are disrespectful of the cultural, legal, civil, or moral rights of others and/or practises with any form of discrimination.
Psychologists especially provide responsible care to individuals and
groups who may be disadvantaged and/or oppressed.
2.4.1. Psychologists recognise the vulnerability of some individuals, groups, or communities and take appropriate action in relation to this. (Psychologists recognise that special vulnerability may occur with political or social oppression, age, ethnic origin, ability to communicate, sensory impairments,
economic standing and need for support from others.)
Psychologists recognise that integrity implies honesty in
relationships. Honesty requires psychologists to be accurate,
complete and comprehensible in all aspects of their work.
3.1.3. Psychologists ensure that claims or conclusions can be supported by a standard of evidence acceptable to the profession. Statements of opinion are clearly identified as such. (Psychologists should be able to acknowledge the basis of any opinions expressed.)
3.1.7. Where psychologists make reports that are found to be incorrect or misleading, they take all reasonable steps to correct the error as quickly as possible.
4.4.5 Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are frivolous and are intended to harm the respondent rather than protect the public.
Julie, this is probably not an ideal analogy however I’m hoping you might get the gist of what I’m hoping to articulate with my question to you.
Can you imagine the difference between a German and a Jew seeking fairness, justice, equality or equal services for Jews from the Mayor of Berlin in 1944?
Of course it’s not all on Neville’s shoulders however if he provoked hatred towards Jews using Nazi propaganda then he would certainly be far from innocent. He would definitely share in Hitler’s guilt.
Thank you for your efforts. We Jews need friendly Germans to help undo decades of damage from Nazi propaganda before many of us will feel confident that we’ll be taken seriously rather than continue to be discriminated against by authorities indoctrinated with Nazi bigotry.
Between 1998 and 2005 FULLY 88% of all protection order were made out WITHOUT a judge so much as clapping eyes on the men (most usually) served with the order.
Most often this has led to men being physically and socially dislocated and marginalized.
Treated as criminals WITHOUT due process and PROOF of wrongdoing, needlessly shamed they are effectively silenced.
That reminds me strongly of the way the Romany gypsies were treated by Nazzis – conviction without trial and rendered homeless.
Some speak out here at MENZ.
In understandably rageful terms their words aren’t pretty but blunt, visceral, real.
Then man haters like Neville Robertson can cruelly and jubilantly say to themselves and others of their ilk “look there’s the evidence – verbal abuse”. And according to their doctrine it is verbal abuse to name call.
But it isn’t so.
It’s a basic human need as a social being for folks to name people and processes EXACTLY as they see them – unvarnished and unpalatable as that may be.
Anything less is totalitarian.
For the day we stop calling a fascist a fascist and slip into doublespeak is the day George Orwell warned us about in his novel 1984.
A good analogy well developed, Wayne.
Great comment Wayne.
Many of my Romany ancestors were slaughtered by Nazi Germans and I’m disturbed at the horrific parallels I too see between modern day feminism and Nazism.
The nazzis of course were much cruder about it, mas graves and gas ovens and all.
But the feminists have learnt from such crudeness and hence the feminist system has had time and chance to refine whilst retaining many of the same odious elements to it.
*Favoritism towards a supposedly superior social group over other groups.
*Arrest without proof of wrongdoing for the oppressed group.
*Mass convictions of the oppressed group in courts that have no juries NOR media NOR public scrutiny.
*Media and academia discourse control which doublespeaks the above terrorist hydra.
I live in Victoria. It’s the one state in Australia in which male rape victims can get help. Do you think I have nothing to do with that?
We have a new state govt as of a month or so ago. I’m currently arranging a meeting between victims, counsellors and the new health minister(Helps when you know people. Oh, and the city mayor wanders past my office every day. I often have a smoke with him. He’s one of the local pollies who used to ruffle my hair when I was a kid).
Those descriptions of victims being laughed at and called liars are the experiences of real victims all over Australia and New Zealand. In my national grouping are six expat kiwis. You may recall me recently asking you for help for one of them. By the way the NZ cops screwed him around yet AGAIN. For about the sixth time.
Members of that group in other parts of Australia have lobbied governments and existing services repeatedly to no avail and even some quite aggressive negativity. Fundraisers for ASCA – a support group for survivors of child abuse more generally – tell me that they can’t speak of male victims or victims of female abusers without doors slamming in their faces.
Those doors slam because of the deceptions promulgated by Neville Robertson and others pushing the same agendas. In my country it’s Michael Flood, Rob Moony, Moira Raynor, Stephen Fisher, Lyn Allison and many more. Given the marginalisation created by them and the impact it has on the victims so harmed they have the blood of too many victims on their hands. I’d suggest not getting too close to Neville lest you be likewise smeared.
You may recall a post I made about power recently. I talked even of my own intersection with it. That meeting I referred to won’t include me. My obligation, my responsibility as I see it, lies in making it happen for others.
Neville Robertson has significant influence in how victims are treated in our communities. One would hope that he would have some knowledge of their realities. Possibly even a modicum of concern for their welfare. He absolutely does have an obligation to those effected by his exercise of power. He has a moral, ethical and profession responsibility to answer the questions of those thus affected.
Nor should it matter how those questions are framed. If Mr Robertson really knew anything about victims he would have recognised it’s source. That he can’t or won’t respond in any meaningful manner is indicative of somebody who isn’t really invested in the welfare of victims. Perhaps it’s a career focus. Perhaps he’s just another gender political mandarin. It doesn’t matter.
In future, julie, make sure you know what you are talking about before you criticise the activities of others. Unlike you I function best as a facilitator who can avoid credit for what I do. Nor do I brag about it in a way intended to demean others – unless goaded. I WILL, however, demean with great prejudice those who harm others in the pursuit of their own selfish, personal or idealogical goals.
Gwallan, you do allot… I know, and you do it well.
I had written a comment explaining quite a bit but then realised there’s many parts to all this and there’s allot of organisation required.
Australian men are doing well, much better than men over here. I think it’s a matter of still making men aware and eventually men in NZ will have both the community and political working well together and on that day, they’ll have succeeded.
I asked a question about a statement made by Hans and got a very helpful reply from him citing his sources. I think that is called rational debate, not violence. So yes, that’s it.
So there it is folks.
Watch a feminist first try labeling someone misogynist (standard practice for many feminists in a disagreement), then deny he even did so, then get a very generous response which shows any claims of misogyny are absolutely stupid, then go on to try vindicating his behavior as purely rational.
What a doozy.
And the feminists wonder why we don’t trust them.
Deny, minimize, distort, project all you like, folks here aren’t stupid.
There are some very smart cookies here.
Here’s a word to the wise……
Better not so much as give your wife an angry look,
You may get arrested on mere suspicion of committing domestic violence.
I know, I know.
It’s a terrible travesty that no actual roof would be needed.
It’s a recipe for her having total control in the relationship.
She can abuse you to her hearts content with impunity knowing she only has to dial three numbers to make here claim and your toast.
So you better be a good little man and keep towing the feminist line until you hatch an escape plan.
Mind you, in your case if you were arrested it might be the best thing that happened to you, as it would firmly supplant your academic theories with many men’s shared reality.
It would be very tough on you however, as you’ve pissed off so many folks I seriously doubt you’d get a McKenzie friend to support you in that hermetically sealed star chamber of misandry the femily caught.
What a situation you’ve got yourself in!
This article about religious extremism in relation to the recent assassination of Pakistani moderate politician Salman Taseer is sobering reading very relevant to the situation NZ finds itself in. We are much closer than you might imagine to a gender based ideological facism forcing us to submit to outlandish feminist beliefs. Numerous laws have already been made or modified to forward feminist aims and men’s civil rights have been slashed in the process. The law now provides for men to be thrown out of their homes at the whim of women, without trial or need even for evidence of wrongdoing. Any expression of anger or dissatisfaction by men has been defined as violence towards the superior class and will be punished accordingly. Men’s assets and earnings for their labour are being plundered to provide secure lifestyles to women, much like Mugabe’s country-wrecking theft of assets from white farmers to give to those whom he favours (and who support his regime). Women’s violence towards men is widely condoned, police overlook it and advise violent women to take out protection orders against their victims, and the NZ justice system usually minimizes female violence through light sentences. Anyone daring to express a view contrary to the the feminist zeitgeist is subjected to violent reactions from feminist supporters; at present those reactions involve verbal abuse, character assassination, professional ruin and social marginalization (talk about power and control…); the next step will be political imprisonments, beatings and killings.
Until recently, the feminist mullahs have been able to swat off any rational challenge to their excesses, so smug have they been in their achievements against a sleeping enemy. But as more men are waking up to what’s happening and the men’s movement gets more traction, you can be sure that feminist forces will become increasingly violent. There is big money involved, careers and power to defend. Watch out! But many men now have little left of value to them and will come to see dying as martyrs (metaphorically speaking) being better than committing suicide.
Thank-you Hans for putting into words so precisely and eruditely my darkest fears for New Zealand.
Some thoughts which get stirred in me reading your posting –
I would only make one slight amendment to your superb statement.
Whereas you say there is “big money involved” in the plundering and oppression of men, I would say there’s HUGE money involved in that process.
I think about it this way –
Even on an average sort of income 1 dollar in every $5 that people earn in NZ they’re forced to hand over to the government. On top of that they pay 12.5% GST on everything they purchase, 59 cents tax on every litre of petrol they buy etc etc.
You get the picture.
Now admittedly a lot of the tax collected goes on very worthwhile things which enrich everyone there.
But, and here’s the rub – as you’ll be aware much much more of the tax revenue collected goes on supporting initiatives for females only, whilst it is males who according to virtually ALL indices of distress languish behind females including having a whopping 5% longevity gap.
With New Zealand women being given superior taxpayer funded health-care, welfare and education funding it’s a wonder to me that the longevity gap is only 5%!
Burgeoning choices and opportunities for females, less choices and resources for males.
Privilege and longevity for females, obligations and early death for males.
That’s the name of the game.
As we know it’s the elephant in the room which requires a radical paradigm shift for many to begin to recognize.
That appears to represent a HUGE multi-billion dollar industry feminists have cornered which relies on males being silenced and ultimately upon male disposability for it’s continuance.
It’s propped up by female – supremacist attitudes – that females and better and hence more worthy people than males – gender apartheid.
When I think about it this way it makes total sense why feminists with any kind of spotlight shone on them, be it of calm rationality or outrage and harsh words simply don’t give a damn.
I’ve come to view feminism as a kind of addiction, in this case to power and control. That’s an idea I may develop further.
A 12 step program for recovering feminists anyone?
And having mentioned apartheid, look how long it took and how much internal and international pressure it took for that system to be disestablished!
Even so the effects (and massive monetary cost) of it are still apparent as they may be for generations to come yet.
You are quite right about the gender imbalance concerning state money provided to women. However, you are out of date; our GST is now 15%. Looking at the WINZ list of benefits, we find two that are available only to women on the basis of their gender, but there are no similar benefits available to men and there are no benefits at all available only to men:
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Women Alone
A weekly payment which helps women over 50 who have lost the support of their partner or finished caring for a child or sick relative.
A weekly payment which helps women whose husbands or partners have died.
In addition many other benefits, although written in gender neutral terms and available to both genders, appear to have been designed primarily to support women who will also be the overwhelmingly most frequent recipients because of their common social roles and because men die about 5 years earlier on average:
Surviving Spouse or Partner Pension
A fortnightly payment for people whose spouse or partner has died from disabilities caused by a war or other emergency they served in.
Help with some of the funeral costs of someone close to you who has died.
Living Alone Payment
An ongoing extra payment on top of your NZ Superannuation or Veteran’s Pension, when you maintain a household on your own.
Residential Care Loan
Many people going into residential care want to keep their home.
Residential Care Subsidy
If you need long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home, you may be able to get a Residential Care Subsidy from the Ministry of Health.
A payment which helps carers or parents with things like laundry, housework, cooking, childcare or parenting skills.
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Care of Sick or Infirm
A weekly payment which helps people who are caring for someone at home who needs full-time care.
Domestic Purposes Benefit Sole Parent
A weekly payment which helps sole parents with one or more dependent children.
Domestic Purposes Benefit Sole Parent Study Assistance Loan – Work and Income
Extra recoverable assistance is available for clients who are receiving Domestic Purposes Benefit Sole Parent and who are undertaking study at level 4 or above.
Child Disability Allowance
A fortnightly payment made to the main carer of a child or young person with a serious disability. (note the “main carer” qualification that will rule separated fathers out in most cases)
A weekly payment which helps carers supporting a child or young person whose parents have died or can’t be found, or cant look after them because they have a long-term illness or incapacity.
Although I think the time is long past for special gender-based money, I’m not saying I disagree with most of these benefits. They may be quite justified and socially responsible. However, I would appreciate some small sign of gratitude from the gendered class of people who get most such assistance rather than constant criticism of the class who don’t but still pay for it.
Thanks again for the wonderful fleshing out of what I was saying, and for the correction that Goods and Services Tax is in fact higher than I had stated at 15%.
Again I feel moved to add something.
I’m sure it’s something you already know but add it for readers newer to thinking about such things.
I too like you would appreciate some small sign of gratitude from the gendered class of people who get most such assistance rather than constant criticism of the class who don’t but still pay for it (males).
I’m also aware however of an even greater burden than we’ve described thus far in this thread falling to men alone.
That because of provider roles which men take on they tend to attract greater wages and salaries than women.
Far, far fewer men than women will take part time employment, for example.
That in turn means that men as a class pay MUCH MORE in income taxes than women.
Yet as we know and you’ve so diligently laid out men DON’T receive anywhere near the taxpayer funded benefits that women can take for granted……..
AND that’s on top of all the aforementioned other forms of misandry gets lumped in also.
In effect (and this really gets my blood boiling) men in NZ are paying for their own oppression.
I knew that a while back and moved to being self employed, to doing work on a quid pro quo basis with no cash changing hands and did other things to consciously minimize the tax taken from me.
Unfortunately I’m afraid many men in NZ aren’t aware of this whole taxation without representation dynamic which is why I speak out about it here. If i just wake up one person about this and they in turn wake up another and……
It seems like we males have much provocation to defend ourselves from!
The comments from #43 to #45 seem to me so weighty, so salient and so unvoiced in NZ that I’d love to see them form the basis of an entire new thread.
Your spelling out all the entitlements women only receive alongside men’s lack of human rights, and views expressed about a feminist police state, the whole shooting box, deserve more than being lumped at the bottom of a thread regarding defense of provocation.
I appreciate you are a busy man, but nonetheless how about taking those postings and knocking them into something to start a new thread with?
With a funky title to hook readers if you do decide to take that on please.
This man murdered his wife. What else is there to say? I don’t think you can justify any kind of abuse from either party in a relationship and I certainly think using this real life scenario to push your pseudo masculine views is obviously based in complete misunderstanding of the devastation of an event like this.
It does not further our society to dismiss the seriousness of this crime by trying to compare or justify it in relation to other criminal offenses by either female or male parties.
Perhaps your time and energy would be better dedicated to educating people in how to cope with and avoid this type of violence ruling and ruining their lives.
T Williams (#149): There was a lot to say and it was said by several contributors. Nobody here justified any kind of violence so we’re not sure why you would imply they did. Our quick look at this post and the replies did not show anyone dismissed the seriousness of this crime and there was no comparison or justification of it in relation to other criminal offences. If you can point to anything of that nature that was written here we would be grateful.
The partial defence of provocation was never a justification of the homicide but an acknowledgement that provocation diminishes people’s rational control and therefore culpability. Manslaughter is still a very serious offence that can be sentenced with life imprisonment or any number of years up to that.
The original post here made the point that there was evidence of provocation. When the partial defence of provocation was removed in law the promise was that provocation could and would be taken into consideration at sentencing rather than in the conviction. That didn’t appear to happen, Mr Meads being sentenced to more than murder’s default ten years minimum for what was a homicide without aggravating features and involving significant provocation.
I saw and heard David White this morning on the AM show..
I could see he has learned that men are only part of the problem.
After years of talking to Men he is realising, it seems, the problem is wide spread, and that it belongs to everyone, when the shows’ host said that Men have to change, David White said well yes, and everyone.
He said (White) “that children need Fathers”. So I was to gather from this that his learning had taken him down a track whereby a breakdown in family values had caused a somewhat systemic problem among family.
We all know that if parents are smokers or drink lots of alcohol that there will be strong likelihood of children following suite, SO IT HAS BEEN for Women becoming solo parents.
Why should a chick struggle along affording a life for three when she can be sorted for two.
There is no doubt it is hard to make it as a family but to make it an easy option for Mother and Child to leave a Father is obviously wrong. The lack of commitment by a Women is something NZ has been paying for, for too long.
There is no doubt that the system has set up for Women and on top of the push for Women has created all sorts of problems mostly for Men of course.
In a family children get to witness relationships’ ups and downs, it teaches them about all sorts of thing, how to argue points, how to forgive , forget and repair,humility, integrity, love, laugh and like.
Now take that away, put the kid with only the Mother, what are they learning about relationships now. Are they getting false reality, things are okay and you do not have to worry about anything much, how much reality is kept from children in these circumstances, are they learning from the adult in their lives and is it the good stuff, humour, forgiveness, love?
If a white ribbon ambassador says children need their fathers,,then what is to be done about it.
Men definitely need a MOMA.