Institutionalized Favouritism Towards Female Offender
Day after day our news media report blatant examples of denigration, disrespect, disenfranchisement and neglect towards men and institutionalized favouritism towards women, but here’s one that deserves some kind of prize. The title is “Home detention after underage sex with boy“, and there’s another report on it headlined “Detention for woman over sex with boy“. A 34-year old woman had sex with a 15-year old boy repeatedly over several months. The boy was in the care of her and her husband for “mentoring” because of behavioural problems. The woman became pregnant to the boy, left her husband and continued to have sex with the boy until one day he allegedly assaulted her. She was reported by others as being very controlling and as seeming to have an attraction to young teenage boys. Yet this female offender was sentenced to 10-months home detention with some counselling, and she was granted name suppression to protect her family. CYFS found “no evidence” that she was a risk to her own or other children and left the boy’s baby and her previous children in her care. No worries.
Any man who had repeatedly sexually violated a 15-year old girl would always go to jail and CYFS would ensure no children were allowed to live in any house with him. Moreover, CYFS would be likely to threaten to remove the children from any woman who so much as maintained an intimate relationship with him. For a male offender, the fact that he was in a position of trust as the victim’s caregiver/mentor would be seen as a serious aggravating factor that increased the penalty. Police would almost certainly have prosecuted him for sexual grooming and any other offence category they could think of. And why is it that this female offender’s family deserves protection through her name suppression but families of similar male offenders are almost never shown that consideration?
These unbelievable double standards are further evidenced by the judge’s reported comment that there was no suggestion she was a bad mother. But wait a minute, she was in a parental role towards this troubled boy, a position of trust that she exploited for her own sexual gratification. (Incidentally, the news coverage does not explain how this woman came to be caring for someone else’s troubled teen; was she a CYFS caregiver?) Also the judge is reported to have taken her childcare responsibilities and personal circumstances into account in sentencing. Since when has a male offender’s responsibility to provide for his children stopped him from being imprisoned for sexual violation? Incredibly, the judge said “this relationship developed inappropriately” and attributed it to “circumstances”. It wasn’t circumstances; it was a much older woman exploiting an underage boy. When on earth would we hear a male’s sexual offending being blamed on circumstances? Feminist groups would screem loudly at any such minimization when it came to a male offender; have we heard them on this case? Then, believe it or not, the woman’s lawyer is quoted essentially blaming the boy for the offences against him and claiming that the offending had not “set this young man up for a fall”. Yeah right, when women offend against males there’s no harm done. So when things eventually became so crazy for this boy that he assaulted his abuser, wasn’t that a “fall” for him already?
The merciful treatment shown to this offender may well be humane and reasonable. But if so, there is no excuse other than sexism for withholding the same mercy from males who offend similarly and their families.
Note also that the news articles refer euphemistically to “sex with boy”, “this unhealthy relationship” and “a consensual sexual relationship” (but when a man offends sexually against a minor, consent is seen as legally impossible and any victim who agreed to the the sexual contact is seen as having been manipulated).
And to top off this incredible story, the lawyer went on to say “It just means he has to be responsible in some way for his actions as well, further down the track”. Can you guess what that doublespeak means? It may mean that he will face charges for assaulting his abuser. It also means this lad will soon face bills from Inland Revenue for so-called Child Support, plus vicious compounding penalties when he gets behind on his payments for any reason. That is, he will be fined constantly for almost two decades for being a victim of sexual violation, made financially responsible for the consequences of the crime committed against him. Worse still, the money he pays will probably go towards reimbursing the government for funding his abuser’s lifestyle.
Can this really be happening? Can so many people keep pretending it’s not?
Thank-you Hans for spelling out to folks who care to read another glaring example of NZs institutionalised misandry.
I will send a link to your post to friends I know who have been thinking of moving to NZ and investing there. I think they should be warned what a dangerous inhumane culture would await their arrival.
In the past I’ve worked as a therapist with male sex offenders and I’m aghast at the double standards you so righly expose.
What should trouble all conscionable NZers about this case is it highlights just how widespread and systemic misandry now is in NZ. For the misandry involves
1. A woman who’s already a mother of 4 and has been given a ‘caregiver’ role ‘mentoring’ the boy.
2. CYFS
3. Lawyer
4. Judge
5. Media reporter
I’ve also worked as a probation officer in NZ and I can tell you for certain that I’ve supervised probates who got her sentence of 10 months supervision because they’d shoplifted a few items from The Barn. So the judge has sent out a message to NZ (and indeed to the world) that if you’re an adult male and you groom, then sexually violate a girl you’ll get approx 7 years in Jail followed by up to 2 years follow up probation, yet if you’re an adult female and you groom, then sexually violate a boy you’ll get a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket AND as Hans cogently points out you’ll get further institutional victimisation by being forced upon reaching the legal age of adulthood to pay child support.
To answer your parting questions Hans….
Yes, sadly I can beleive it’s happening and Yes many people keep pretending it’s not happening.
I once heard NZ described as a society that was passionless. Now I believe it’s a society that more than that. It’s one that’s DEEP in denial.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 30th April 2010 @ 9:34 am
What about those teen girls screaming and stealing that teen singer whatever his name is hat, and then trying to blackmail him if he wanted to get it back. Trying to rip his clothes off, screaming, knocking his mother down, mass hysteria etc. What do we hear about it on the news? Oh that’s just normal teenage girl behaviour! Um isn’t this quite a concern? Imagine the reaction of a teen boy trying to rip the clothes off a teen girl! See if they call that normal!
Comment by Scott B — Fri 30th April 2010 @ 10:49 am
Ah, you see, women are not only permitted to get away with things deemed crimes for men they are also permitted to do it publicly and in mobs.
What you’ve described here would be portrayed in terms equating to pack rape if the genders were reversed.
Comment by gwallan — Fri 30th April 2010 @ 4:01 pm
US media report that a 24-year-old man shouted at her that she was “fat” and she decided to settle that the Mike Tyson way.
She allegedly ran half a block, tackled the man and bit off a chunk of his right ear.
Comment by Dave — Sat 1st May 2010 @ 6:24 pm
yes its a funny old world we live in . A girl I had been seeing some months prior arrived at my house drunk, so as to not let her drive drunk any further I allowed her to SLEEP in my bed the nite. She would not listen to no and had what i call date rape for a lack of a better description, now many years later Ive been paying through the nose and heart as a child was the result. which she has decided to take away from me because I am a typical “violent and drunken male”, in her words not mine.
ITS A FUNNY OLD SEXIST WORLD.
Comment by aaron — Sun 2nd May 2010 @ 8:48 am
aaron,
That reminds me somewhat of the drunken American woman I once met at a restaurant dance in NZ.
She walked straight accross the danceflor to where I was stood watching the sunset on a balcony and thrust her hand down teh front of my trousers!
I took the matter to the local police and they scoffed at me – you should be so lucky mate. i laid a complaint to the police complaints authority who dealt with the matter ‘internally’ – a euphemism for hushed up the police sexism and lack of professionalism. I realised at that point NZ men were at risk from misandric females and enabling police.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 2nd May 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Compare with…
Youth gets 5 years for rape
Same judge during the same week.
Hipocrite.
Comment by gwallan — Sun 2nd May 2010 @ 3:05 pm
Thanks for that gwallan. I guess there is a big difference between the cases in that the female complainant said it was against her will whereas the male claimed he agreed to have sex at 15 with the 34-year old in locum parentis. However, as I wrote above consent is usually considered irrelevant when a male behaves sexually with an underage girl, so why should it play such a big role when a female behaves sexually with an underage boy?
I am aware of a case in which an adult male had sexual intercourse with an underage teenage girl. Their numerous mutual texts show that she participated fully in planning for the encounter and that the meeting was clearly intended to involve intercourse. She turned up at the agreed place to meet the man in the wee hours, having sneaked out of her parents’ residence in order to do so. She already had been having sex on many occasions with another older man. Her obvious agreement with the sex was disregarded by the Court, and it seemed clear that through interrogation she was convinced to see the men as totally responsible for the sexual activities. This man was jailed for several years. He was also convicted for “grooming” on the basis of the mutual texts between him and the girl to plan the encounter.
I agree that the adult be held responsible for any sexual contact with underage persons regardless of how willing the underage person was. Any violence, threats or deliberate deceit is appropriately treated as an aggravating factor, and to that extent the young person’s willingness has an effect on sentencing. But as we see above, when the offender is a female suddenly the underage person’s willingness is given so much weight that it becomes almost an excuse to let her off the hook.
The case you refer us to seems interesting. I know nothing about this case except what is reported, and I acknowledge from the outset that my next comments may be invalid should there be other significant facts that have not been reported in the media. He is alleged to have “raped” the female in the room next to his parents’ bedroom where they slept. Surely even a modest protest against what he was doing might have attracted the parents’ attention? He claims the sex was consensual. There is no mention that the complainant was underage. The legal definition of rape appears now to be any sexual intercourse that a woman retrospectively prefers not to have happened. There is no need for her to have made clear her disagreement with the sexual behaviour. Ok, perhaps she was emotionally needy and felt unable to communicate her disagreement at the time. But the same could be said of a young gang prospect who agrees to participate in a violent crime, yet he ends up being held responsible for his participation regardless that he may have felt overawed, unable to assert himself, needy for the gang’s approval and support in the context of an unhappy home etc etc.
The fact that a female complainant now does not have to prove she objected clearly to sexual activity means that we already have de facto law requiring any accused male to prove her consent. Re-read that sentence and consider its gravity. One of the most fundamental protections against injustice, that of being considered innocent unless proven guilty, is now abandoned in favour of feminist supremacy.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 2nd May 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Yes, Hans.
Your final paragraph –
The fact that a female complainant now does not have to prove she objected clearly to sexual activity means that we already have de facto law requiring any accused male to prove her consent. Re-read that sentence and consider its gravity. One of the most fundamental protections against injustice, that of being considered innocent unless proven guilty, is now abandoned in favour of feminist supremacy.
is chillingly true I believe.
It makes NZ women very unattractive that after decadea of feminist ‘consciousness raising’ all but the retarded amongst them must by now that the law under feminist jurisprudence is terribly bigotted abgainst males. Yet whilst they know this is the case they remain passive aggressive in doing nothing to change it to bring humaneness and justice towards NZs menfolk.
Today I was active in explaining to some more Americans examples of gross injustices against men in NZ under feminist principles.
The message that NZ is a bad place for men IS spreading.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 2nd May 2010 @ 10:10 pm