If this was a man!
A question – what would have happened if this was a man?
Sex attack gets drink-driver off
A woman has had her 12-month drink-driving disqualification overturned because she drove her car to escape a sexual assault.
She was found guilty — her second conviction — and banned from driving. That was later overturned on appeal by a judge convinced she had driven in a state of panic…
The woman appealed the sentence, but not the conviction, and this month Auckland High Court Judge Paul Heath set aside the 12-month disqualification, but increased the community service sentence from 100 to 300 hours.
Judge Heath upheld her appeal on the grounds the assault would have been traumatic, that she complied with a previous disqualification and because the 12-month disqualification would have had a significant financial impact.
“I have no doubt that she reacted to the alleged indecent assault intuitively and with a sense of panic. It should not be held against her, for the purpose of [legal] discretion, that her decision was irrational.”
This is another example of how bizarre appeal court judgements have become and how gender does appear to  influence people like Paul Heath the so called judge in this matter.
To paraphrase James K Baxter
Justice walks heavy in this land, she bears a rope and shroud, treat a woman differently says Harry Fat the proud.
So she didn’t tell them of the assault straight away! Convenient! And her recollection was “vague!” – In NZ it only has to be vague! Evidence what is that? If she was actually assaulted then of course that is terrible, just making a point.
“the 12-month disqualification would have had a significant financial impact”
Oh no! How terrible!
You have been found guilty of 17 murders, but by putting you in prison, that would have a significant financial impact on you, so we won’t be doing that!
Comment by Scott B — Sun 20th June 2010 @ 3:53 pm
In fairness to the Judge who originally tried this.
In sentencing her to 100 hours community service and a 12-month disqualification from driving, Judge Thomas Everitt noted that while the events were “unsavoury to say the least” there was no reason to drive.
He also said her evidence of the assault was “rather vague”.
“There is nothing in her affidavit to indicate why she just did not leave the house, go down the street, go next door, go somewhere, wake one of the other persons in the house, call for help, whatever…
“The public interest must take precedence over [the woman’s] drunken inability to recollect, or whatever was going on once she was awoken.
“To drive whilst drunk at that level, 1093 micrograms, puts the public in danger. How many times in recent days have we seen drunks killing people on the roads? No doubt they had their own reasons to be driving.”
The woman appealed the sentence, but not the conviction, and this month Auckland High Court Judge Paul Heath set aside the 12-month disqualification, but increased the community service sentence from 100 to 300 hours
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 20th June 2010 @ 6:04 pm
I agree 100% with the first judge. People are going to be killed. But I also think this was not her first offence because you don’t get 12 months for a first offence. You normally get 3 -6 months for first offence, 9 months for second but I suppose that could be 12 months. But then again you can get 12 months for a third offence.
One day I was talking with a neighbour of my brother-in-law and I saw my car drive past. It was being driven by a drunk woman who didn’t have a license and she said she was afraid of her partner.
I was worried and angry that she thought it was OK.
She was violent herself sometimes but other times she’d shit stir the man. She’d do things and do things and do things some more until she’d get a reaction from him. After she pushed him to the limit, she’d panic.
This is going to be abused, IMO.
Comment by julie — Sun 20th June 2010 @ 8:41 pm
If this was a man….
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 20th August 2010 @ 7:22 am
Yes indeed, or this, or this, or this.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 20th August 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Thanks Hans,
They are shocking, appalling examples of women being given the ‘pussy pass’ you highlight with those links.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 20th August 2010 @ 4:20 pm
Thanks Skeptik, and they just happen to be from the last week or so. This kind of favouritism is happening all the time.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 20th August 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Warren Farrell several decades ago pointed out that women were receiving special treatment in western law enforcement, justice, corrections and other regulatory systems, and he provided evidence. Nothing much seems to have changed as the following recent news articles show (mainly from New Zealand). Judge for yourself. I do not argue necessarily that these women should have been treated more harshly, only that there is no justification for treating men differently.
1. Community work for kicking two male police in the groin (i.e. the genitals)and spitting in an officer’s mouth
2. Female prisoners in “self-care units”, allowed to work with and to enjoy the comnpany of puppies, unlike male prisoners
3. Double bunking is of course only for male prisons
4. And while female inmates can now have their young children living with them in jail, a male prisoner’s role in his young daughter’s life is treated with contempt.
5. Man defrauds involving a company in his wife’s name. Why isn’t she charged?
6. Female fraudster, gets short home detention
7. Repeat fraud offender gets name suppression
8. Female employment fraudster gets light sentence
9. Woman repeats fraud offending after previous light treatment, and still gets a short prison term
10. Domestic disupute in which the Court believes a woman was physically forced by her partner to hit him
11. Woman caught in possession of P, why was the charge dropped?
12. Would a man charged with this serious crime be treated so casually?
13. False allegations made against taxi driver but no mention of the lying women being charged
14. Child taken from father for minor fault, returned to mother who promptly caused serious burns to the child
15. Woman assaults and kills baby who is discovered to have broken bones from previous assaults, gets light sentence and the blame is put on social workers and everything else except the woman
16. Women charged with serious violence (like murder in this case) are much more likely than men to be referred for psychiatric assessment in the search for something to blame, anything but the woman herself
17. Woman kills man but is charged only with assault
18. 34yo woman regularly rapes an underaged teenage boy, gets pregnant, she receives a short home detention, is allowed to keep her children, the male victim is blamed and will have to pay child tax
19. False complaint but no real consequences
20. In Kahui twins case, police ignored and withheld evidence implicating the mother
21. False rape complainant gets supervision
22. Drunk woman drives with young son, crashes car, no mention of CYFS referral
23. Female childcare worker is sacked for assaulting the children, then is awarded compensation by the Employment Court
24. Woman teacher assaults pupil, is given only a warning and allowed straight back into the classroom
25. Nasty female shows pattern of abusive behaviour towards colleagues, yet is found to have been unjustifiably dismissed and is awarded money
26. Would a man charged with murdering his partner be released on bail?
27. Would two men charged with murdering their partners be released on bail?
28. Woman takes child to NZ from US; if a man had done it it would have been called “abduction” and the child would be removed from him forthwith
29. Group of women brutally attack, are released on bail
30. Woman assaults and kills toddler, gets less than 6 years (will be out in 2 on parole)
31. Whereas man kills woman after provocation, gets minimum 14yrs 6mths before parole
32. Boy sexually violated by much older woman, police saw no problem and neither did the law prior to 2002
33. Gay Oakes epitomized justice advantage for women, being the only murderer under previously existing legislation to be released before the minimum 10yrs
34. Woman kills 15yo boy by giving him methadone, gets 15mths jail
35. Versalko’s prostitute receives millions of stolen money, but is given name suppression and allowed to keep a lot of it
36. Imagine if a man claimed he tripped over a dog and that caused fatal injuries to the child he was carrying
37. Imagine the outcry if a 45yo man had sex with a 19yo female student in his care
38. Woman crashes car, seriously injures children, but no mention of being charged with anything
39. Woman hires a hitman to assault her boss for her own financial gain, causes boss permanent brain damage, she is likely to be released after 3ys 6mths
40. Would any man get a third chance to complete a community sentence, a very lenient sentence for such child abuse?
41. Female counsellor behaves incompetently causing death of client, yet female Health and Disability Commissioner treats her with utter leniency; lucky she wasn’t a male counsellor who dared to comment on a female client’s appearance!
42. Why weren’t the young women charged for getting into the car stolen by boyfriend?
43. The females in involved in a frenzied attack that killed a man are only charged with assault
44. And then they are discharged completely after “legal argument”, before any jury could decide
45. Violent woman who had to be handcuffed to protect emergency services is charged only with driving offences
And some from other countries
46. When a woman repeatedly murders, the system bends over backward to find her not responsible for her actions
47. Unbelievable
48. A short manslaughter sentence even though this woman had texted a friend to say she was going to kill the victim
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Superb work Hans!
Thank-you.
This list if links is a stunning indictment of the misandry rife within the NZ Justice system.
And far far from being exclusive as I’m sure you’re well aware.
What about posting it off to the Minister of Justice Simon Power, Shadow Minister for Justice, NZ Men’s Rights activists and NZ victims rights organizations? The latter two types of organizations may add further links of their own.
I’d also love to see a copy sent to Amnesty International NZ.
You could add other links to highlight femily court injustices and reference to the terribly misandric Male assaults Female charge for which there is still no female equivalent as well.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 8:12 pm
Very nice work Hans. It shows there’s massive differences between women and men when it comes to the justice system in NZ.
I watched a doco about 2 westerners in Indonesian prisons – one man, one women, boyfriend/girlfriend. Massive differences in how men and women tick and how they socialise as prisoners. The women made their prison into a community while the men made it into a jungle where the fittest survives.
What an eye opener!
NZ is different for there are MRAs who try to help male prisoners inside and outside but they come up against a brick wall when it comes to resources.
Solution: Maybe there needs to be more care about male prisoners.
Comment by julie — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 9:31 pm
Hans,
I hope you won’t mind.
I figured your posting #5 was so powerful and as it was put in a public space (MENZ website) that I have just taken it upon myself to post in in it’s entirety replete with all links functioning to Angry Harry.
You may get to see it before very long on his website which is read by hundreds of thousands of regular readers.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 9:39 pm
Julie,
I’m certain that there needs to be much more care about male prisoners.
Forever etched on my mind are stunning memories of entering Mt Eden prison to interview a defathered, very mixed up and very scared young man being held in detention awaiting trial and sentencing.
I DO NOT exaggerate in calling the place medieval.
The day I visited him it was raining and INSIDE corridors were awash with puddles. Every wall was grimy and untouchable without risk of disease. I stayed for a short while after interviewing him and witnessed a muster. Guys came out of cells to an assembly area, also awash in stinking muddy puddles. As I looked on absolutely riveted, aghast in speechless shock I was joined by a Fijian female prison officer. She was the biggest and hardest woman I have ever seen in person. An amazon who stood at least 6 foot three and solid as Jonah Lomu. I spluttered something about the appalling conditions to her and her response was “Well, it shakes ’em up so it’ll put ’em off doing future crime”.
Having to wait at the exit guardhouse on the way out for locks to tumble before i could be released into daylight again I had time and opportunity for one last question. I asked the prison officer at the guardhouse where it was that women were held in remand awaiting trial.
“Oh, in the new place just up the road a ways” he replied.
Driving away I did happen to spot ‘the new place’ he’d mentioned.
It was a custom built brand spanking new unit. Unlike the place the men were held it had proper heating, lighting and sanitary plumbing, decor and flooring.
It was a hugely seminal moment for me. An epiphany you might say.
I then began to realize that I too had to escape a despicable prison reserved exclusively for men – New Zealand.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 9:56 pm
49. What would the media do to a male cabinet minister who had this kind of relationship with an employee?
Comment by rc — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 11:08 pm
link
Comment by rc — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 11:11 pm
It’s generalisations like this that do more harm than good Julie.
Every anecdote I’ve heard over the last 40 years asserting the behavioral superiority of women has turned out to be a fiction.
See Hans’s posting #5.
Read up on how women guards behaved at Ravensbruck.
Comment by rc — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 11:30 pm
I hear were you are coming from but I don’t see this as a gender issue. Lots of places – re:buildings, need to be upgraded or demolished and replaced.
I’ve seen amazing, hard working, dedicated women give and give and give to work on getting funding to fix buildings for women. It’s a huge big deal and something that is worthy of celebration.
Women I know who do this are understanding that men’s buildings also need to be addressed but the opportunities aren’t presenting themselves as easily – note: it’s not easy to do this and takes years of asking, filling out forms, asking for donations from wealthy people etc and then there’s all the permits, plans, bylaws and so on.
Some say it’s about resources and women are fortunate to get it and not bad because they went for it. It would be neat to see this extended to buildings men use and maybe that could go down as a solution.
A woman who I’ve been meaning to met up with has got wealthy corporations donating millions to build shelters for homeless men in Auckland. I think I saw them being built and if what I saw is it, WOW, fantastic work.
I wonder whether housing corporation would give a home for men abused by women – you never know till you ask but that’s for someone else to take on because we’re all busy already caring for men and fathers.
Comment by julie — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 11:48 pm
I second that motion… This is great.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 24th August 2010 @ 11:58 pm
I must admit I thought that was a gross generalization about men’s and women’s prisons and the fact remains despite what anyone says I saw with my own eyes the huge difference between what men treatment male prisoners were given compared to female prisoners.
So on top of what Hans is saying about sentencing disparity I have to say the sentences men spend in prison aren’t only usually much longer, but much harder as well.
As for escaping misandric prison NZ. I acknowledge that may be hard to hear. No-one likes to think their country harbors such evil.
However, having left the place all I can is that those folks awakened to the depth and breadth of misandry there yet who choose to stay display allot of courage. As for myself having suffered the horrific existence I did in NZ as a man, elsewhere is a huge breath of fresh air. A whole new life again actually.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:02 am
Ooops, seem to have lost the right to fix spelling errors. Gosh, it’s hard to know which agenda is responsible for this when there’s 2 at play at the moment.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:05 am
One thing I forgot to add earlier when writing this above –
The assembly where a couple of hundred male prisoners were mustered WAS INSIDE!!!
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:06 am
Yes, it’s very interesting that most supporters of feminism who always claimed to seek gender equality are deafeningly silent about all inequality when it favours women.
Incidently, many offenders prefer to stay at Mt Eden for various reasons. No prison is a place people like to be even though some shelter and regular meals may be better than living under a bridge during the winter months.
Those supportive of such ideals as espoused by the Sensible Sentencing Trust (who rarely say anything sensible) keep calling for longer sentences even though that will not reduce offending rates. The longer you keep someone in an abnormal environment, and the more harsh or abnormal that environment is, the less well adjusted that person will be to society.
Personally I wonder if it would be better to use a short period of harshness followed by full on rehabilitation to train up the behaviours we prefer to see. The short period of harshness will better satisfy the rabble’s desire for retribution (“take that you %^@&&”) and anyway it’s only the first few weeks of a prison sentence that is punitive because humans soon adapt to the situation they find themselves in. Two weeks of daily stocks behind protective screens with public access available (perhaps sell tickets), and a meagre diet. After that, rehabilitation in which inmates earn real privileges through showing and practising pro-social behaviour and effective, legitimate life skills, which of course they will need to have the opportunity to show.
And of course I favour gender equality in this.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:08 am
It’s one of those things you sometimes can’t ignore RC. The documentary was very persuasive. I feel real sorry for the western man.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:09 am
1. “Massive differences in how men and women tick and how they socialise as prisoners. The women made their prison into a community while the men made it into a jungle where the fittest survives.”
2. “I hear were you are coming from but I don’t see this as a gender issue.”
Well I’ll leave you with the last word Julie. To my mind, your second statement denies your first – but to be fair, you made no claim to being consistent. Good for you for having so many wonderful and charitable women in your life making the world a better place. I look forward to seeing the fruit of their good works in the future.
Comment by rc — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:13 am
Spot on rc.
I agree entirely.
We’ve all seen by now what aberrant female prison officers are capable of at Abhu Graibb
(U.S. Pfc. Lynndie England).
“Madeline Albright, on Fox News May 7, stated that she was shocked and sickened by the U.S.-sponsored S&M show at Abu Ghraib prison. This is the same Madeline Albright who said that she thought it was “worth the price” to starve (at the time) an estimated half a million Iraqi children with U.N. sanctions.
The Abu Ghraib scandal, more than any U.S. military scandal in recent memory, has exposed the utter depravity of allowing women to enter the armed services. As pictures of the tomboyish U.S. Pfc. Lynndie England made their way around the world last week, it turns out contrary to some reports that labeled her a guard at the prison, England was actually an inmate-processing clerk. In other words, the multiple photos of her dragging a man across the floor on a leash, giving the thumbs up over a pile of nude Iraqi men, and standing in front of hooded men pretending to fire rifle shots at their penises, these photos were all taken while she was visiting her boyfriend, Cpl. Charles Graner, while he was in charge of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
England is now detained at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, four months pregnant with Graner’s child. Hence even if she hadn’t participated in the Abu Ghraib S&M Show, she wouldn’t have remained in service and been much use to the military. Playing probably an ever bigger role in the scandal than England was another woman, Sabrina Harman. Harman took the photos (note feminist Laura Berman’s attempt to blame the male Graner for this), participated in torturing the hooded Iraqi seen in one photo standing on a box with wires coming from his hands, wrote “rapist” on another prisoner’s leg, and best yet, posed for a photo with a corpse, a man who had been beaten to death at the prison. While Harman’s parents are claiming she took the photos to document the abuse, other evidence indicates she was an enthusiastic participant, often running and jumping on piles of stacked, nude Iraqi men to crush and hurt them“.
More here.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:17 am
Lol, collecting words from 2 different comments about 2 different topics and putting them together is a weak argument against my personal.
The first one’s about Indonesian prisons and the second about funding in NZ.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:19 am
As horrible as a patriarchy is or is perceived to be (and “patriarchy” has become a pajorative today), each one still represents a significant advancement in civilization. There are important reasons no matriarchies have developed or persisited throughout history to which reference may be made – because women have NOT been able to construct a social organization that advances civilization. This failure on their part reflects their brain structure, addiction to neurotransmitters and power and control. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And women, as evidenced by their behavior in families comprising communities with very misadrous laws, can’t do anything without expecting absolute power. Men can and demonstrably have throughout history. Not all men (which explains male enablers of feminists), but enough to advance civilization. There are important reasons religious texts and government laws have historically discouraged women from participating in the church and government – because they are inherently incapable of doing so without falling to their addictions to power and control, as dictated by their neurotransmitters. Again, it’s not that all men are able to avoid these traps, but enough are. Enough women are not. It’s not that women are bad or evil (although I personally think they are), but that is how they are and laws had to be made to protect civilization from them and their male enablers. Our current circumstances reflect the degree to which we have forgotten history and abandoned the laws and rules that prevented women and their male enablers from taking over and driving us back to a caste social organization and away from a civilization. As I explained, their behavior is an addiction to neurotransmitters, a compulsion. they can’t stop themselves. They don’t know anything else. To move beyond our current dilemma, we have to address these real phenomena, understanding that we are dealing with the equivalent of a drug addict. Drug addicts will do ANYTHING to satisfy their addiction, lie cheat steal snatch children and hold them for ransom abuse their children (even their own) etc… We’re not dealing with rational people. Most rational approaches to solving a problem like the one we have only encourages an addict. It gives them the attention they want and validates the control they feel they have, that they feel their addiction gives them. Protesting without any real consequences to these people makes them draft more laws that encourage more protests, more validation of their behavior. It does not discourage their behavior.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:22 am
BTW RC, there are lots of men doing wonderful work in the community too and if I’ve offended you by not including them, I’m very sorry. You should be so lucky to meet a wonderful man who drops of food to fathers in need. He was taken to the UN and honoured for his work.
Then there’s the city mission – incredible men who have tried for many years to push for father’s rights. Gosh, then there’s ….. I could be here all night saying.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:23 am
I do not know a good solution to our problem. That’s why I keep coming back to war. It’s the only thing that has worked against the kind of tyranny and oppression we are currently experiencing. We’re dealing with very dangerous and desperate people. Ever try taking drugs away from an addict or helping them quit. It usually cost a lot to the person helping them quit. Withdrawal is a very dangerous process to the person assisting. Most of the time, it’s just better to get rid of them. That’s not nice to say, but it’s true. Addicts usually cost their communities as much in remission as when they are active addicts. Throughout history, civilization advanced only after the addicts were eliminated – without mercy and with extreme prejudice. Women were kept around for procreation, and only after laws were implemented to keep their behavior in check. The men were killed. It was necessary. it still is.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:29 am
rc,
Yes, I agree.
This statement –
“Massive differences in how men and women tick and how they socialize as prisoners. The women made their prison into a community while the men made it into a jungle where the fittest survives.” strikes me as a terribly sexist generalization.
I believe if you treat men like animals (e.g. Mt Eden Prison) and women like dignified humans (e.g. Women’s remand center close to Mt Eden Prison) then you’ll tend to get men who behave like animals.
People can on the other hand ignore and/or rationalize the sights I saw with my own eyes and use that as an apriori argument that men are mere animals whilst women are civilized.
That line of thinking doesn’t go down at all well with me.
If it were up to me I’d put a bulldozer through Auckland’s Mt Eden prison.
It’s a national disgrace.
Either that or turn it into a museum of our barbaric past somewhat like the remains of Hiroshima City Hall and Auschwitz.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 12:53 am
Adendum –
I wrote – People can on the other hand ignore and/or rationalize the sights I saw with my own eyes and use that as an apriori argument that men are mere animals whilst women are civilized.
What I meant to say was –
I’m afraid people can then ignore and/or rationalize the sights I saw with my own eyes at Auckland’s Mt Eden Prison for men and the Remand center for women nearby and use that as an apriori argument that men are mere animals whilst women are civilized.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 1:06 am
Darryl X,
I wonder. Men have done a wonderful job inventing things, making roads, hospitals, schools, electricity, heaters, appliances, machinery even robots have been invented. But, if we are at the end of inventing, what should we do?
The bible talks of God creating everything and when all was perfect, he rested. Likewise men will do the same IMO – he will create everything, then perfect it and then rest. At the moment we are at the stage of perfecting everything (again IMO) and that takes honesty for starters and lots of research etc.
If you could perfect men’s lot, what would you choose to do? Find cures for diseases maybe? Eliminate men’s risks? Make their environment safe? Stop men from being disposable?
I agree with the importance of men’s work when it came to making the world we live in. But I don’t ignore the important roles women played.
Muslim countries are Patriarchy but I see them as wanting to hold civilisation back because of their religion. You won’t get men killing themselves or giving away their own personal belongings and power unless you offer them something they value. Sex will do it…… how many virgins do you get in heaven?
Women haven’t failed and neither have men. Everyone is special and has something worthwhile to give and most of our brains are just fine. IMO and others I speak to, greed goes across the board and power corrupts absolutely both men and women.
Personally, I think you can come up with solutions for men’s plight (general) and you’re own (personal). I think if men and women want men and women to be a certain way for a relationship, they will find someone similar if they want to.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 10:23 am
Pardon my confusion Julie.
I mistakenly read your response to Skeptic as a response to me, since I saw it appear in the list of ‘Recent Comments’ after I posted my own.
My purpose in quoting both statements was to document where my difficulty in understanding you lay – it wasn’t to construct a false link between two unrelated subjects.
Comment by rc — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 10:49 am
That’s overgeneralizing bigotry.
It’s also got nothing to do with the topic of the thread which relates to a man like so many others entangled in the NEW ZEALAND ‘justice’ system.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:18 am
This is a website and I’m willing to get involved in debate if you’d like. Do you think Muslim belief is something different than Patriarchy?
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:19 am
I’m focussing on the topic of the thread – If this were a man IN NEW ZEALAND. last time I looked NZ wasn’t a muslim country and plenty of muslim countries were holding democratic elections.
In one small sentence however moderate muslim men IN NZ have been generalized as ‘patriarchal’ and thus alienated! : in a piece of writing that goes on to give reference to the beliefs of the more radical fringes of muslim culture as though that was representative of the entire muslim community.
To paraphrase rc from earlier in the thread it’s generalizations like that that do more harm than good.
I see no point in debating that further.
Returning to the topic of the thread – If this were a man in NZ
For what it’s worth coincidentally I happened to watch the movie ‘Osama’ last night. My observations over many years lead me to conclude that NZ men currently live under a somewhat Talibanesque feminist-chivalrist oligarchy.
I’m aware that this site is being monitored by feminists as well as others from across the political spectrum. Feminists I’ve given up on. They can wither on the vine as far as I’m concerned.
Whilst I don’t agree with Daryl’s promotion of violence, I do agree with him that it’s pointless trying to talk reason to feminists and thus engage them in negotiation. We tried that in the 80s, 90s and 00s to no avail.
I prefer to just ignore them as much as possible and hold faith that entropy will take care of matters from there.
But the more rational and reasonable folks can draw their own conclusions about the state of men’s affairs under NZ laws.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:42 am
There can be no healthy relationships with current laws, as all relationships under current laws automatically put men at a perpetual disadvantage and in perpetual defense. As Stephen Baskerville has observed in many of his examples of fine literature, in marriage, under the current laws, spouses are racing to divorce each other as soon as they marry, and women have the considerable upper hand. Not much of a relationship.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:51 am
Throw in some demographic issues for my generation, and relationships are even less likely. In the US, my generation is the smallest in history (Gen X). Only one in seven people I encounter when I walk out my door is a woman in my generation. Most are married or crazy or both. Not many opportunities there.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:53 am
Marriage???
cut out the middleman find someone that hates you and buy them a house
Comment by mits — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Cmon Julie do you really believe its that simple?
I think if men and women want men and women to be a certain way for a relationship, they will find someone similar if they want to.
and with that sweeping generalization Julie you explain why the title of your website is called the “single parent Trust”
Comment by mits — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 2:15 pm
mits,
I haven’t laughed so much in ages here at MENZ as when reading this brilliant pithy comment of yours –
Whilst your buying them a house you should also volunteer for a feminist reprogramming sessions with some anger management outfits.
They’ll help you write your suicide note in a way that doesn’t offend female sensitivity.
You can hand in your resignation at work and write apology letters to all your neighbors for being male too.
Of course an apology for merely existing sent to the misery of wimmin’s affears wouldn’t go amiss (you take their air when you breath, you know!)
You can then jump off Grafton Bridge into an an oncoming truck with a clear conscience.
On second thoughts make that Auckland bridge – much less messy and less likely to spoil feminist sensibilities by being reported in the media they so love to read and chatter about.
Have I missed anything in this checklist for male voluntary euthanasia to appease NZ feminists?
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 2:45 pm
Oops, I went off topic. Better pull that up, lol. I am aware some MRAs think NZ is Matriarchy while some feminists think it’s Patriarchy. I think it depends where you go and what aspects you look at.
Oh, so it’s a thread to compare?
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Really? Do you think humans are incapable of thinking for themselves? The Rockerfellers realised we are pathetic this way and the NWO counts on it.
And do you think if women are put at a disadvantage things will be better? Or do you have a solution that puts both at an advantage? Hint, hint.
He is right IMO. But this has been happening for over 100 years from my research. The more people become independent, the less dependant. The more we progress, the more we are able to do. Even people who are blind, deaf and handicapped in other ways have the chance to live independent these days.
I agree. Men don’t have representation and this doesn’t help relationships when they end. If men had better representation they would be able to walk away much easier. With women having the upper hand, many men are staying in relationships they don’t want just to be able to be in their children’s lives, to have a home rather than pay for one for the ex and rent a room in someone else’s home etc.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 7:57 pm
Julie could you define what you mean by patriarchy. I suspect that people at MENZ use the concept to mean many different things.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 8:01 pm
Mits, sometimes I forget that not all men read all online men’s words. There’s talk that other countries are men friendly and if you go there you will find suitable partners.
I do beleive this and I also think there’s plenty of women in NZ who are at men’s standards. My group has women you are young widows from Japan, China etc because their older husbands brought them here when they got sick for the healthcare and died leaving the women to fend for themselves. I don’t do wrong to help them.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Ooops, damn spelling mistakes. I make plenty BTW.
You should be who.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 8:29 pm
Scrap, to me, Patriarchy is men ruling women.
In my opinion, the Patriarchy doesn’t exist as the norm in NZ. Under economics it means women have to ask men for money. Under spirituality is means women can be raised in one faith, maybe chose another as an independent but must become what ever the husband is. Under social it means the woman has to make the man and can’t be a someone in her own right. It means women can’t own any property, can’t vote, can’t make decisions for themselves or hold any position that makes a decision for a group of people.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Scrap, I don’t care to fight over a Patriarchy or a Matriarchy. I, like lots or women want to help the men they care about in their lives.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 9:04 pm
You’re a good man RC. I can’t get over how well you can tell what a person’s like online.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 9:59 pm
I was laughing at that too. If it weren’t so true, I would have laughed harder.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Haha. Now that you agree with Skeptic’s way of mentoring fatherless boys, what’s your solution?
Comment by julie — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:43 pm
I appreciate the sentiment of your thoughts above, Julie, but a man can’t be a very responsible partner when he is under perpetual threat of losing his children – and has no legal recourse to do anything about it. Enough representation adequate enough to protect a man and his children against these laws does not exist. I know men who have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of their lives on “representation” and they are no better off than I am. As far as women and independence are concerned – women are NOT independent so much as they are heavily subsidized and enabled by the government. The gov’t makes a very lousy partner. Oh, sure it is giving women what they want now (so why would a woman need a man), but as soon as (other men) men are completely out of the picture (exiled, imprisoned, destitute), it will turn on the women too. This is what addicts, malignant narcissists and psychopaths do – they can’t help it. This has happened many times throughout history. Women are not independent – they NEED men for survival, if nothing else (and to satisfy their addictions – God help the man who doesn’t). Men do not need women, as men have evolved existing on the margins of society without women anyway. Women, on the other hand and for the most part, have had to ally themselves with an alpha male to survive – without him she would not survive. Men do, however, have a natural affinity for their children, which is why women and the gov’t have used them to destroy men.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:43 pm
NZ is a matriarchy. NOT a patriarchy. It doesn’t matter what you feel. It only matters what conclusions you can draw from objective analysis of facts and data. If 10% of the male population of NZ has left the country, siting oppression by feminists, a huge proportion of children have lost contact with their fathers, and there are concerns that women are not having enough children to maintain the population, then I’d say that’s a matriarchy. However one defines patriarchy, and face it, if women are so dependent upon some kind of man whether it be an alpha male in gov’t or a beta male in marriage, then that’s a patriarchy. But some patriarchies advance civilization – ones in which women are dependent upon men in marriage. And some don’t – when there is no marriage anymore (like now), and women are entirely dependent upon men in gov’t – so they manipulate the men in gov’t. That’s a patriarchy that does not advance civilization. However, women are now in gov’t and women are dependent upon other women – the blind leading the blind. No objective analysis of facts and data to make responsible decisions. That’s a matriarchy, and it’s why your country and many others are at great risk of diappearing and falling to countries like Iran that understand the subversive nature of women and still enforce laws that condemn in meaningful ways their adultery, compulsive lying, etc… As I’ve explained before, feminism and all its pathological trappings are at the foundation of the imminent collapse of economies throughout the developed world. That’s soon. Look at what happened in Atlanta, GA in the US this past week. That’s just one example of what you’ll be seeing all over the world. There is no way to reverse our present course. Feminists have succeeded in destroying civilization. We are at war already and that war is going to heat up fast. Whether you want it to or not. People are going to be fighting for basic survival. So, the option of peaceful resistance is a luxury few are going to be able to afford in the near future.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 25th August 2010 @ 11:57 pm
DarrylX, are you sure you want to help NZ? You didn’t confirm you are going to be part of the protester’s tour.
Comment by julie — Thu 26th August 2010 @ 1:42 am
Daryl X,
You say –
Whilst I have seen evidence that a huge proportion of NZ children have lost contact with their fathers I’m not so sure about the other figures you mention.
A quick websearch has revealed the following –
NZ ranks 151st for birth rates globally 13.94 per thousand people according to index mundi.
Google public data shows the NZ population growth down year by year since 2003.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 26th August 2010 @ 1:52 am
I still working out my schedule. Things are kinda short-sited here, unfortunately. Problem with my employer is they don’t make decisions until the last minute. I left the country this past month, but I only had three days advance notice before I could go. Doubled cost of my airline tickets.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 26th August 2010 @ 4:32 am
Oh, and here are more examples of female privilege in justice:
50. Female sailor caught driving at twice the drink-drive limit is let off
51. Woman has sentence reduced for major benefit fraud because of stress on her family, but men don’t get such consideration, instead being told that the effects on their families are their own fault
52. Sympathetic decision by jury who finds woman guilty of manslaughter when charged with murder
53. Woman previously received 5 yrs prison for regularly sexually exploiting a boy from age 12 to 18 (a similar male offender could expect twice that sentence), now imprisoned for repeated theft as employee
54. Throughout the tragic Nia Glassie case, little has been said about the fact that Nia’s 34yo mother took as a “partner” 17yo Wiremu Curtis who was intellectually slow with a mental age of a 12yo. If the gender roles had been reversed Wiremu as a girl would have been seen as sexually exploited by the 34yo man, and the teenage girl’s violence towards Nia would have been blamed on that
55. This Somali woman who violently hijacked a NZ commercial flight and in the process injured several crew with a knife has been given a significant jail term, but why were the wounding and other charges dropped and why was her sentence not increased for those offences?
56. And from Germany, a true pussy pass for a woman who avoids prison after being convicted of having sex with men when she but not they knew she was HIV infected, causing one of the men to be infected with HIV. Compare that with this man in Australia, jailed even though he only ever practised safe sex and never infected anybody, and this man in NZ jailed for 9 months even though he didn’t infect anyone (and note also the extension here of the definition of an “injury” under ACC and the definition of a sexual offence), and this man in NZ who was imprisoned on remand so was certain to receive a lengthy prison sentence, and this NZ man jailed for 8yrs 4mths for infecting his wife with HIV. I have not been able to find a case anywhere in which a male with HIV convicted of having sex with unknowing partners has received the light sentence that the German woman received.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 27th August 2010 @ 12:07 pm
While we’re doing humour, here’s the history of the world summarized in one photo….
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 27th August 2010 @ 1:29 pm
You shine a light on a subject that demands more illumination Hans – the more you post, the more criminal it all appears.
When bias such as this is so endemic within the system, it begs a solution – and something a little more likely to work that ‘we’ll try harder next time’.
I watched the TV interview a couple of days back with the young woman who killed a middle-aged woman whilst drink driving. I couldn’t help but be mesmerised by the whole thing in a familiar, wicked way. She was an attractive girl, full of remorse and the victim’s son was publicly forgiving her. The interviewer had a consoling manner when talking to her. E-mails and text messages of support for her non-jail sentence poured in. She outlined her plans to tour schools to educate young people against her own actions. All very noble – I almost felt sorry for her having to face justice at all (*sniff* – excuse me while I wipe away a tear).
If a production such as this can have this effect on me, it’s not surprising that judges, lawyers and juries produce the results they do. As long as we rely on people consciously trying to put their biases aside, I don’t see their effect ever being eliminated. On the other hand, what if the sentencing judge took no part in the trial itself, was only made familiar with the verdict and had no idea if the defendant was male or female? (not so radical considering the symbol of justice is blind-folded)
Comment by rc — Fri 27th August 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Daryl X,
I agree with every word of this comment of yours –
That comment resonates within me deeply and strongly.
In every relationship I’ve had with women in NZ for many years since I’ve been aware of the enormous misandric power NZ women have only a phone call or casual gossip comment away (feminist terrorism) I’ve felt horribly disadvantaged and often quietly terrified.
Every woman I meet in NZ with it’s deeply ingrained misandry can potentially instantly become a feminist terrorist and my life gets ruined due to a false accusation. In NZ I am ‘a nigger in the deep south’ so to speak.
I actually think the NZ feminist PC climate is terribly unhealthy as it means men are too often walking on eggshells and fearful of just stating their opinion / airing their feelings regarding issues.
(That’s not a democratic environment!)I reckon subsequently those views and feelings men have too often get stuffed down inside until sooner or later they self medicates with legal and/or illicit substances or cannot keep the lid on any longer and explode in ways which seems inexplicable and overreacting to others. Sadly some just commit suicide.
Sad. But that’s the part of the price I see being paid to the soft totalitarianism of feminist NZ.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 27th August 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Hans,
again wonderful work.
I’ve again jut posted your comment in it’s entirety with all links functioning to Angry Harry.com whose website as you know is read by many thousands of people worldwide daily.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 27th August 2010 @ 2:15 pm
Sorry, Skeptik, about lack of citations. I recall reference in another post on this site to the pheonomenon concerning 10% of men leaving NZ – I think it was under feminism and World War III. Anyway, in response to that claim (which to me seemed a little incredible), I did some investigation (just a web search) and found a number of articles written during the past ten or twelve years by qualified scholars and professionals, which conclude that there is a considerable and growing female to male sex ratio and that an important reason for that growing ratio (if not the only reason) is men leaving NZ in response to oppression by women. Several of the articles conclude that the birth rate of Kiwis with European or English ancestry is not great enough to replace themselves within the next two generations (40-60 years). I did not acquire and analyze census data from NZ myself and the information was not in a referreed scientific journal. But data were cited and qualifications of the authors seemed reasonable and gave credibility to their claims. I understand your inquiry and I myself do not like discussing such claims without good scientific data. However, with regards to the subject matter on this site, there tends to be little data (because studies of such things are actively discouraged – in the US, they are discouraged with death threats – look at what happened to Erin Pizzey in England), although what there is generally supports concerns of men about feminism. False allegations by women and propaganda by feminists about domestic violence and child abuse are a good example. There are no legitimate studies or data supporting claims by women and feminists and their male enablers that most victims of domestic violence are women and that approximately 50% of all women will be abused by a partner. Contrary to these claims and propaganda, almost all conclusions based upon data gathered and analysed objectively in compliance with the Scientific Method and published in scientific journals show that domestic violence and child abuse (real domestic violence and real child abuse – not the feminist definition like expressing disagreement with your partner or objecting to their real physical abuse of you or dispensing responsible punishment of your children – which feminists regard as abuse) are incident to approximately 25% of families and most is perpetrated by women. Furthermore, severe domestic violence and child abuse (referred to as battering) is very rare (approximately 0.30% of families), and that women and men are equally responsible. Approximately half of domestic violence is mutual combat initiated by the women. Approximately two-thirds of non-reciprocal violence is perpetrated by women and one-third by men. More than 75% of all child abusers convicted in criminal courts are women (when you consider that many instances of child abuse are listed as multiple perpetrators, instead of women or men, and understand that most multiple perpetrators include the mother, then the number is much greater than 75%, leaving men a small proportion of child abusers). If you consider agressive campaigns of extreme parental alienation as child abuse and acknowledge that women are responsible for most instances of parental alienation, then the number of men responsible for child abuse is a tiny fraction of women who are responsible. Despite all the money dumped into faminist campaigns against men, no data contradict these conclusions above. Anyway, sorry to go on about domestic violence and child abuse. I’m very passionate about that. My point, though, is scientific data, although not perfect, are better than other sources of information, and I, like you, encourage their use whenever possible. I’ll see if I can find references concerning demographics of NZ – there were several articles. BTW, references for domestic violence and child abuse include scienists like Daniel Whitaker (US Center for Disease Control) and Murray Straus (Univ of New Hampshire).
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 28th August 2010 @ 12:20 am