Rather than do a news omnibus as I have done in the past (they take too long) I will try to convey news in small amounts more frequently. People can add any stories they find to this thread.
I start out with a story today headlined “Dad Stabbed in Struggle with Women Burglars“. The man who confronted and attempted to apprehend these female thieves is lucky he’s not facing assault or sexual assault charges. We await the sympathetic deal these women will probably get in Court. We await their attempt to blame some male for their vicious thievery and violence. We await further anti-violence campaigns that show only men committing violence and only women being victimized. These particular violent females were probably living on some benefit or another, living off the generosity of others in their society whom they then steal from and attack.
Next, “Gay Worker Wins $15k for Sexual Harassment“. Fair enough, but it’s interesting how sexual harassment is usually reserved for females. This case shows female-type males will also qualify, even though there was no harassment in the usual sense of attempts to become sexually involved with an employee. Are we likely to see men compensated for sexual harassment, be it women’s comments about their physique or women’s denigrating comments about claimed male deficits? Watch out the window and when you see a pig flying, expect harassment of men to be punished.
Then there’s the champion of feminist propaganda Bob Harvey in “Sack the Museum Board, Says Mayor“. He praises Dr Vanda Vitali for her work. To me, Dr Vitali seemed like a typical bolshy feminist who acted as though she was always right, who would not listen or negotiate and who cared little about offending others. It’s interesting that men were the victims of her particular form of violence: war veterans, Sir Edmund Hilary, Deputy Director Tim Walker. I wonder how many of the 46 museum staff whose jobs she axed were men.
Finally today we get “Two Officers Face Enquiries“. The reluctance of the force to specify their gender suggests one or both may be females. Just like on the many occasions where news articles don’t mention the gender of officers assaulted or injured on the job, you can bet they will be male officers. When a female of any kind is offended against it’s always considered important enough to highlight her gender. When a female commits offences her gender is often relegated to somewhere deep in the article or omitted completely.
Feel free to add below daily articles and comment on them from a men’s movement perspective. I will.
Thank you Hans this will be an interesting group!
Thanks again for stirling work.
Here is an addition from today’s news.
I am appalled the woman convicted only gets 15 years imprisonment and feel convinced if it were a man who’d done the crime he’d be in prison for life with NO parole.
Here’s a report from NZ in todays news.
Reply to Skeptik
Yes,and I noticed she plays the typical ‘spin’…’He baited me’…..Just my humble opinion,here we go again with the typical ‘I am the Victim’…It was ‘His’ fault that he upset me….!!!!….Grrrrrrrrrr…..!!!!!
Kind regards John Dutchie
Good find Skeptik. Of course, in NZ she might only be charged with the special sexist law of “Infanticide”, exclusive to women, with a maximum prison term of 3 years.
Yeah, let’s see what sentence she gets.
Today’s headline “Man Charged With Murder of Missing Man” reminds us that men are most often the victims of violence in society. Here’s some other recent ones:
1 “Drug-debt heavies admit kidnap, assault”
2 “Teens charged in assault case”
3 “Man used car to ram ambulance, police allege” (an example of the gender of the victims not seen as worth mentioning, because they were only males)
4 “Heated confrontations end in tragedy” (an example of victim-blaming, a vicious stabbing-in-the-back murder inappropriately attributed to an “altercation” in which the seriousness of the attack on a male is minimized through an implication that he was somewhat culpable)
5 “Two charged with assault after balcony fall”
6 “Motorists ignored hit-and-run victim’s pleas for help” (“hit-to-rob” more like it)
7 ” War veteran beaten up trying to help girl in distress”
8 “Stabbing victim to leave NZ before attacker is freed”
9 ” Residents tell of sobs and screams”
10 “Answers sought over paintball attack death” (wow, imagine how police would have handled this if it had been a female victim!)
11 “More teens charged”
12 “Man admits attacking Air NZ steward”
13 “Doctor ‘missed’ man’s fractured skull, court told”
Whew! And that’s just news stories from March, not all of them, and that’s only the violence against men seen as interesting enough to report. There’s no clue to this in feminist propaganda such as the White Ribbon Campaign that implies only violence against women is significant enough to be concerned about. The facts are that a small proportion of men and (probably) a somewhat smaller proportion of women are inclined to use violence, and men are most often targeted. Murders will kill, injuries will hurt and maimings will cause disability regardless of the gender of either the assaulter or assaulted. To dismiss male victims because other males were more likely to have assaulted them is no more reasonable than dismissing crimes against Maori because other Maori were more likely to commit them. When men are victims of violence this will often be minimized as simply due to “a fight” between two men, but usually that will be little different from an escalation of violence between a man and woman that ends up with one party physically assaulting more seriously than the other party did. Aside from that, many incidents of violence against men are associated with robbery, jealousy, revenge or wanton violence. Here’s another recent example “Man arrested for Bay of Plenty principal’s murder” in which police minimized the fatal violence used against a Rotorua man by referring to a “fight” breaking out and the victim being “punched to the ground” when in fact the victim had not engaged in any fight yet was attacked viciously and kicked to death whilst on the ground “Principal’s head kicked like ball, court told”
Then there’s the “Lavish Lifestyle of $17.8 million Bank Swindler”. An interesting aspect of this case is that fraudster Versalko gave $3.4 million to two prostitutes. They’re both trying to hang on to it as is Versalko’s wife, and one or more of them will probably succeed to some extent even though if you or I have stolen property it will be seized regardless of whether we knew it was stolen or whether we paid for it in good faith. But what about those prostitutes? How can either woman believe it’s ok to take so much money from someone? Did she think it was for her scintillating conversation or charming personality? More likely they were happy to encourage his addiction to that particular vice of clandestine sex, and they were quite good fraudsters themselves. Versalko’s lawyer claimed that one of them was blackmailing him. This is exactly what was to be expected from the Clark government’s legalization of prostitution devoid of protections for clients or for society beyond basic hygiene requirements, on the dishonest portrayal of prostitutes as victims and their clients as exploiters.
While we’re on the subject of Helen Clark, the UN is currently paying her to continue her longstanding sexist plot, of which her “open slather for prostitutes to exploit men” was but one aspect. She now sees her role as particularly to empower women “Frost vs Clark: Women need help”, though I’m not sure that was the understanding when we agreed to pay copious levies to the UN. Although she claims it will be to “improve maternal health” and other meritorious sounding aims, her true intention will be to poison the minds of third-world women and achieve the same levels of family destruction and state ownership of children that feminism has achieved in western countries.
Oh, and I couldn’t resist putting in this little piece of sociological research “Kiwi women have more sex” that found NZ women hold the world record for the number of sexual partners, 20.4 each on average. (One wonders who was the unfortunate fellow amounting to only 0.4 of a sexual partner…) A female “sexologist” (hey, I thought I was one of them as a teenager too!) blames this world-record promiscuity on “the failings of kiwi blokes” because “they aren’t very good at picking up women unless they’re really drunk”. Umm…that must be the kind of higher logic that men aren’t equipped to understand; I sure can’t follow the argument. Never mind, it’s reassuringly consistent to see men blamed for women’s behaviour. And anyway, she thought it was a “positive” because it was “more of a gender balance in people getting the kind of sex they want”. Well, well, who would have thought that what women really want is sex with really drunk men!
It seems to me that such high promiscuity reflects many other things including a loss of loyalty, a dereliction of duty as wife and family member, and the development of a feminist sense of entitlement to fulfil every want that may arise.
Another item of interest on the news this week was the announcement that a mass grave had been uncovered in England a few days ago. All the dead were men and were believed to be Vikings, all killed well over 1,000 years ago. The local female presenter went on to say that the Vikings were well-known for having pillaged and raped their way through England – the implication being that these men probably deserved to be massacred.
Are there any instances of mass murder of large numbers of men that are known to have been justified in any way? There’s no shortage of other examples – some as recently as 15 years ago in Bosnia – and all those that I know about have been considered crimes against humanity. From where comes this sudden assumption of victim guilt?
oh.. you mean that mass murder in Srebrenica perhaps?
According to the story, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic alleged that it was the fault of the openly gay dutch soldiers. The same guy who would have been ultimately in charge of NATO Atlantic at that time.
Course it had nothing to do with the fact that NATO was complicit to the massacre by it’s inactions, and it’s refusal to back up dutchbat (the Dutch unit protecting the enclave under UNPROFOR). Result; approximately 8,000 Bosnian MEN of different ages were murdered.
From today’s Herald…..And will the police charge ‘Tongue in Cheek’ this fine outstanding Kiwi Woman for laying a false Rape allegation…..????….
I don’t think so ,for she is a Kiwi Woman, thus a Victim from all us evil Kiwi Men…..May the Man drought here in N.Z continue….
Man ‘destroyed’ by false rape claim
8:42 AM Saturday Mar 20, 2010
A man from the central North Island township of Mangakino says a false accusation of rape leveled against him is a stigma he’ll never be able to shake.
Leonard Joseph, 42, was last week acquitted at the High Court in Rotorua on all charges relating to the alleged rape of the 14-year-old Mangakino girl in March 2009. The charges he faced included abduction, forcibly taking a minor and rape.
The jury took just seven minutes to come back with a not guilty verdict following a five-day trial.
The married father of seven told the Waikato Times the charges “destroyed him” and all the work he’d been trying to do for the Mangakino community.
He used to spend five nights a week helping the town’s youth by teaching kapa haka, hip hop and rugby league teams through a programme called Slam.
But that all stopped when he was arrested and confined to his mother’s house on a 24-hour curfew. After a run-in with his accuser and her family he was remanded in custody. He spent 17 weeks in Waikeria Prison before being released on electronic bail.
Mr Joseph said the girl falsely accused him of rape after the police caught her on her way to Tauranga in a car she had stolen from her parents. She told police she had to leave Mangakino because Mr Joseph raped her.
He said not only did he suffer because of the lie, his family was also tainted.
Mr Joseph said women should think of the consequences before making such accusations.
“It’s not just one man that you are doing this to … it affects everyone. I wouldn’t want any man to go through what I’ve been through.”
His lawyer, Jonathan Temm said the consequences for his client had been “horrific”.
Sexual violation cases were not being looked at critically enough before they made it to court, he said.
The officer in charge of the case was not available for comment yesterday.
Good find John. 7 minutes for the jury to return with its decision is a good indication of the ridiculous nature of the prosecution case. The state should pay compensation to this man for wrongful prosecution and imprisonment. The liar young thief should be looking at a sentence equivalent to what the accused faced if convicted. At least she should be charged for the false complaint, perjury etc. But I haven’t seen that pig fly yet.
By the way, I understood there was some copyright problem with reproducing entire articles here. But never mind…
I’m sure that women already do think of the consequences prior to making such allegations. This type of woman deserves to be retrospectively aborted from ol’ Ms Nanny State’s decrepit womb. The arresting Police Officer/s should be prosecuted and sacked and prevented from being employed where he/she has any authority over another human being.
The false accuser isn’t the only guilty party in this foul drama.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that a number of the violent incidents I linked to above involved teenagers committing extremely violent assaults in groups. This was not what we were promised when our government, captured by false feminist ideology, banned the use of corporal punishment in schools. We were told that when we stop “modelling violence” to our kids they would grow up less violent themselves. The same shallow argument was a mainstay of those supporting the Bradford law that demolished parental authority by banning the use of force in discipline, and similarly terrible reults in our population will be seen in due course.
Reply to Hans
Good call Hans on reproducing entire articles and I will heed your words Good Sir
But here below, is a direct quote from a famous feminists,this makes my ‘Blood Boil’….!!!!
‘Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.’
– Catherine Comins, Vassar College,
Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
And this Feminist crap is taught in Western European Universities…
And then again you hear western European Woman saying why are Good decent and caring Men turning away from us Western European Woman …Heavens forbid…Hello…Wakey…Wakey…You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out……!!!!!
So, the innocent accused is named. The false accuser, who caused an innocent human being to be incarcerated for months and is also a thief remains anonymous AND probably will not be charged with anything.
They charged HIM with kidnapping and HE was the one kidnapped!
The jury took seven minutes to find the truth. The police officers and the prosecutors concerned should be dismissed with extreme prejudice. Each and every one of them should be held personally liable for the destruction of an innocent man. They should be forced to personally compensate him.
The accuser should be charged with kidnap and punished accordingly. If her victim was subject to internal examinations and similar dehumanising and humiliating treatment she should be charged with rape and punished accordingly. Note that at no point did she come clean. She could have spared this man from his violation but chose not to. She should therefore suffer the full weight of the charges she deserves.
Big effort Hans. Well done.
Canadian professor Adam Jones, expert on genocide and author of the seminal Gendercide, has written an excellent piece on the western media’s treatment of harmed, violated or otherwise maltreated men. Using the Kosovo conflict as a backdrop he explains the ways male suffering is consistently relegated to insignificance or rendered invisible altogether. It’s a dry read but well worth the trouble.
Effacing the Male
It’s not just the media either. Some recent manifestations or impacts of this effacement at a global level…
The World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap Report”, in utter contradiction of it’s title, only reports on disadvantage experienced by women and girls. That men and boys are the vast majority of victims globally of violence, imprisonment, suicide, homelessness, workplace death and injury, forced labour including miltary, trafficking, and a host of other issues is completely swept under the carpet.
During the most recent Israeli/Palestine flare up I watched a fifteen minute ABC interview with a senior UN official who was on the spot. He spoke frequently of the victims of the incursion mentioning women twelve times, women and children once. Men?…well maybe the men had all scarpered and left the women and children to their fate.
In the aftermath of the recent Haiti earthquake official agencies refused to provide food aid to men. Interestingly shortly after news started filtering through about the earthquake discussion about providing food aid only to women was quickly apparent. That discussion flared for a couple of days before dying down. It wasn’t for another couple of weeks that the reality of that denial of aid eventuated. That early leak was deliberate. It was designed to soften us up to and test public sentiment for the incredible sexism they were about to perpetrate. They got away with it so we can rest assured that this pattern will continue. We should expect to see more of the same in future, similar instances and there is no reason why that refusal of aid will not be extended to other resources such as medical treatment.
We are now well down the slippery slope towards global gendercide and showing signs of acceleration.
Wake up people!
I can only concur with you all gentlemen.
Here’s a good example of men’s frequent invisibility as victims. The headline is “Second ear-biting attack in a day” referring to “a Christchurch doctor” whose gender is not mentioned at all (so rest assured it will be a male). Then when the article goes on to report on the earlier incident, it immediately describes the victim as “a Rotorua woman” and goes on to refer to her gender nine more times.
And another one today too. The article is headlined “Armed raiders rob security van” and clearly specifies that two men were offenders but makes no mention of the gender of the victims who we can therefore assume were only men (because if any of them had been female, this would have been seen as important enough to mention). This story also highlights the risks of the jobs that men tend to contribute in our society. The headline also seeks to hide the truth. It was not the security van that was robbed, it was male workers! The headline would more accurately read “Armed raiders rob male security staff”
I’m happy to see this father having great fun with his daughter!
He obviously loves her to bits as he’s making a great sacrifice for her – which (and this is a rare event from what I can tell) has been reported on by a NZ news website.
I only hope he doesn’t get right hooked with a false accusation from his wife and loose contact with her as a result.
Enjoy the short article …….and keep up that guard!
I just testing a posting on this thread as I’ve tried to post a couple of times on Dave’s thread about Father’s lack of reproductive rights and nothing happens. Anyone know what’s up with that?
Men are still the only gender in most countries including NZ who can be conscripted and forced to be maimed or killed in war. Men are still expected to allow “women and children first” when it comes to rescue and safety. Women continue to be seen as deserving special mention when they befall unfortunate fates. Men are still taken for granted as they die at their workplaces and generally work in the most dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable and body-damaging jobs to maintain the infrastructure of our lifestyles while feminists begrudge the 12% more earned by those men, and while government-funded attention persists myopically on pay inequality.
In justice too, male offenders are treated with less understanding and mercy than are women, and male victims are shown much less empathy and importance than are female victims. Yet another example of this played out in the news over the last week in the case of Rotorua school principal Hawea Vercoe. His killer was sentenced to 2yrs 10mths imprisonment, while in the same week the killer of a woman was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 20-year minimum non-parole period.
I commented above on 19.03.10 concerning the Vercoe case in which police statements minimized the situation by saying “some sort of fight broke out which resulted in the deceased being punched to the ground” and “that may have caused Mr Vercoe’s death”. This is typical of people’s thinking in our society; male victims of violence are seen to be not really victims because they participated in a fight. But the truth is, women also participate in fights. A large body of objective research has established that women initiate physical violence in relationships as often as men do. A small proportion of their male partners will respond with much more serious violence, and most would agree that women participating in those fights are reasonably seen as victims if the response against them was disproportionate. No different for men in most cases when they have been badly injured through violence. Perhaps if two men agree to “step outside” to “sort it out” in some form of duel, one may argue that the loser doesn’t deserve to be seen as a victim. But even then if the winner pulls out a knife and stabs his opponent, or continues to attack with grievous force even after his opponent has been overpowered, the loser would be justifiably seen as a victim. However, very few violent assaults on men or women occur as the result of a duel to which both parties consent.
It is often difficult to be certain about who is the victim. That’s where our current administration of justice gets it badly wrong. It is constrained by the need to identify a complainant and defendant, an offender and victim, and will do so on various arbitrary criteria. This has crept in to domestic violence legislation administered by the Family Court, even though in relationship conflict both partners are usually as much victims as they are offenders. If someone deliberately shoves someone else and is punched in return, then both parties have committed assault but only the second assailant is likely to be prosecuted while the initiator of the violence is seen as the victim. I have never understood why both parties are not prosecuted for such offending, the more serious offence attracting the greater penalty. Unfortunately for men in relationships with women, gender is one of the criteria most consistently used to determine who is the victim. Police and Courts will believe a woman’s story simply because it fits with social bias towards seeing women as victims, and this bias has become much more dangerous since Family Court judges were empowered to make decisions concerning alleged violence on the “balance of probability” rather than the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” required of criminal Courts. Women are (inaccurately) seen as more likely to be victims, so on the balance of probability any woman’s allegations are seen as more likely to be true.
In the case of Mr Vercoe, no fight “broke out” at all. It appears that Mr Vercoe was walking away to his car after verbally reprimanding a younger man who was behaving objectionably in public. The killer ran at Mr Vercoe and punched him in the back of the head causing him to fall to the ground, then while he lay senseless on the ground subjected Mr Vercoe to a “huge kick” in the head “in a full run…like someone taking a penalty kick in rugby”. The killer, Isaiah Tai, and his friends then denied he had assaulted Mr Vercoe at all until CCTV footage of his actions emerged. The prosecution dropped their murder prosecution when Tai agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter, even though he must have been aware that taking a running rugby kick to the head of someone lying on the ground had a good chance of causing death. The maximum punishment for manslaughter is life imprisonment, meaning a minimum of ten years inside before parole can even be considered and then lifelong parole. So in this case killing a male through extreme and deliberate violence resulted in 0.28 of the maximum imprisonment assuming earliest possible parole or, for this offender, about one twentieth of the maximum possible life sentence based on his expected lifespan.
Compare that with the case of killer Ah You where it was a woman who was killed by deliberate violence. Yes, there are differences between the cases justifying more time for Ah You. His conviction was for murder not manslaughter, the violence was done in the course of a burglary and the victim was an 80-year-old, vulnerable woman, and Ah You had an extensive history of violent crime. On the other hand, I can’t imagine anyone more vulnerable than Mr Vercoe having already been knocked senseless and lying prone on the ground, and his killer had a history of violence too. Also, the judge’s reported comments made it clear that Ah You’s victim persisted in attempting to attack him to prevent the theft of her money. Ah You’s violence although sickening appeared to be aimed at stopping the woman’s efforts to attack him and was not as obviously likely to be lethal as was Tai’s; indeed Ah You’s victim lived for several days and was able to give police a full account of the events. (I do not condone Ah You’s violence one bit, but I simply compare factors in the two cases.) Ah You also tried to plead guilty to manslaughter but in his case the system chose to proceed with the murder trial rather than accept a manslaughter conviction. Both offenders initially denied their involvement in the killings until confronted with irrefutable evidence. The outcome was the same for both victims and their families, but deprived one man and his family including young children of well over half an average lifespan whereas the female victim had already lived an average lifespan. Whatever the calculations and considerations, it is difficult to see that Ah You’s killing was seven-plus times as bad as that of Tai. From beginning to end in these cases, much of the glaring difference in their treatment and disposal represented the difference in value and caring we as a society accord to male vs female victims.
I agree. Your thinking is spot on. NZ society doesn’t value men anywhere as much as it values women and you rightly point out a few examples.
I saw it time and time again whilst working in NZ within the ‘justice’ system.
We even had a slang term for it. There was even a slang tern for it amongst prison guards and the like. They often said women usually got the ‘pussy pass’ whereas men got “right royally bollocked”.
Dear Skeptik and Hans,
I largely agree, BUT!
Are men humbly not blowing their own trumpets and women are just being more brashly self marketing?
Or, are men failing and refusing to stand together, when there is scent of pussy?
Its funny how the men who see themselves as alpha leaders, are sometimes the ones first to break ranks when there are women present. Who is strong in setting a path that follows their social values and who just blow with what they see as opportunity of the moment?
Anyway, I’m practically asleep, so I’m degenerating into gibberish…. zzzz Murray.
Court bias is also remarkable in cases of criminal negligence – or at least the media reportage of it. I notice today that the Crown is gunning for prosecution of the bungy-jump operator involved in the death of a Massey University student. The student was a young woman, the bungy operator a young man. It’s a very marked contrast to the treatment given out to the female river guide involved with the deaths of a dozen or so high-school students and their teacher in Tongariro National Park a couple of years ago. In that instance the media fell over themselves to place the blame on everything except the guide – even intimating that she had suffered enough without anyone needlessly pointing the finger of suspicion at her. It’s a quaint argument that one never hears offered in defence of men vested with the care of others.
Same with high-profile medical malpractice cases. Men doctors who mis-diagnose female patients are a media staple, but I don’t know of any female doctors vilified publicly for being negligent and causing the deaths of male patients. Maybe female doctors never make mistakes – which is possible because I personally know quite a few women who claim the same infallibility. I’m not so generous in my assessment of their mastery of everything though – I make it a policy to avoid female doctors like the plague and to never place my life in the hands of female experts wherever I possibly can. If they know they will never be held as accountable for their errors as their male counterparts, the effect on their competence can’t be dismissed lightly.
Every day there are news stories deserving of analysis illustrating the misandry that has so deeply infested NZ society. I only have time at present to comment on the occasional one, not necessarily the most deserving of mention.
On the one hand we can thank our relatively free press for our chance to read these stories at all, and occasionally one suspects that the journalist recognized there was something awry in a story pertaining to gender matters that made the story socially significant enough to report. For example, a minor Court matter was reported in which a female drunk driver (more than two-and-a-half times the legal alcohol limit) had her disqualification overturned on appeal because she claimed that she was “escaping” a sexual assault, something she made no mention of to police when she was caught. Surely the journalist recognized the convenience of her belated excuse and the significance of the Appeal Court’s encouragement for women to play the “sexual victim” card for all manner of purposes.
On the other hand, the news media also contribute hugely to misandry. Even those journalists who draw our attention to stories like the one above (and check out this one too) have either insufficient insight or are not allowed to highlight the true misandry in their stories. Much more often, the news articles themselves become part of anti-male lynch mobs, or hide or minimize harm caused by women or caused to men.
Here’s a good example. A man required hospitalisation after being assaulted by three burglars who then kidnapped a woman there. She was later found safe and well. However, the headline read “Three arrested after woman kidnapped”, the injured male victim being seen as less significant than the uninjured female. Further, the offenders were described as “a 16-year-old and two men”, with the gender of the 16-year-old studiously avoided throughout the article. When the gender of an offender is not mentioned one can usually assume it’s a female.
And here’s a wonderful example from the news just today of the denial, minimization and justification we so often see concerning women’s violence. A group of women in a car shout verbal abuse at two male cyclists, run them off the road with their car, physically assault them including using a weapon, and steal one of their bicycles. One of the victims was reported to describe the event as being “stranger than fiction”. A female police officer was quoted as describing the “incident” as “bizarre” and stated “you wouldn’t read about it”. (In that at least she was largely correct. We often don’t get to read about the violence initiated by women.)
In fact, it was no “bizarre incident”, it was simply another example of road-rage violence in this case committed by a group of women who appeared to believe they were more entitled to make their way on the road than were cyclists, believed it was their place to “teach them a lesson”, believed it was ok to yell verbal abuse at cyclists from their iron-clad position of power, believed it was acceptable to use their car as a weapon against vulnerable cyclists, and believed they should be allowed to steal from a man. Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that women can be antisocial and violent? Because feminist propaganda has for so long downplayed and hidden female violence in a systematic campaign to protect women’s victim status.
When the men flagged down a car to assist them they were helped but also subjected to ridicule for being beaten up by sheilas. This is typical of how society including police respond to male victims of female violence.
The second article I read about this same case was even more galling. The newspaper gave full and headline coverage to the women’s excuse that they were provoked into committing their violence when one cyclist squirted a water bottle at the car. Provocation of course has been removed as a defence for cases of male violence, but the media are quite happy to lend credibility to a provocation defence when it comes to women’s violence. We can now expect the Courts to apply a de facto provocation defence in sentencing violent women leniently while explicitly rejecting provocation as any excuse in cases of male violence. If a carload of males had committed similar violence towards two female cyclists, the media would report comment from anti-violence groups reminding us that loss of self-control should not be justified by claims of provocation. This double standard was perhaps also reflected in the article’s failure to mention that the cyclist was also provoked into committing the relatively harmless act of squirting his water bottle by the women’s road bullying and verbal abuse.
All too typically, here we see women behaving atrociously but refusing to take responsibility for their error, instead seeking to play a particularly pathetic version of the victim card to excuse their behaviour. The final sentence in the article hits this all home: “No charges have been laid.”
Thanks again Hans for sterling service.
I think you deserve two medals.
One for the amazing job you do of gathering information about misandry and disseminating it so awareness is raised.
The other medal I’d give to you is for simply being a man living in misandric NZ.
A few years back I worked closely with a team of psychologists in NZ which eventuated in me going to a conference in Rotorua for a few days. The conference theme was rehabilitation of offenders.
I won’t forget in a hurry how the conference was packed with NZ psychologists NONE of whom acknowledged misandry as a stressor in the lives of offenders. It was chilling.
I’ve seen no evidence that if the conference were held tomorrow it’s be any different (except if you were to show up).
Perhaps then you may very well deserve a third medal then, for working in a profession which seems to me so utterly and abjectly detached from mens issues.
There was an interesting and welcome article in today’s Herald which – for once – wrote about men being portrayed as sex objects and idiots in media advertising. It was written by a man in advertising, rather than the usual feminist slanted journalist, which may explain its clarity. Rare that such a piece should get past their usual gender filters though.
Postscript. Charges were laid against one of the women and another was being sought. Note how the article reporting this refers to a “bike skirmish” when in fact it was a dangerous and violent attack. If anyone comes across further news of the case and especially the punishment the women receive, I would be very grateful for that to be reported here.
It’s interesting that police took several days to arrest and charge this female offender. I might be wrong, but my impression is that when women commit violent crimes the police take a lot longer to charge them than would be the case for male offenders. For example, here’s a story from this last week about a woman who repeatedly tried to stab another woman with a knife. Notice how the police spokesman seeks to minimize the victim’s injuries (“…injuries were moderate rather than serious”) and went on about not knowing “the reason for the attack” and “the relationship between the two women”, so that “no one had yet been arrested or charged”. Well really, how violent does a woman have to be before she is arrested?
It may be that the idea of women being violent or bad so much challenges the beliefs that feminism has installed in our minds that police find such cases hard to believe and it takes a while before police feel convinced charges are in order.
Mother accused of drowning her son. This tragic situation reported in the news last week deserves consideration. Unfortunately, the news articles raised more questions than they answered. Why do you suppose that happens? I guess the journalists have to try to piece together the facts from what is said publicly, in this case during a High Court trial, while state censorship concerning the activities of its social engineering agencies such as the Family Court and CYFS ensures that the public only hears the party line. When those agencies screw up and matters end up in Court they find it more difficult to keep their activities secret, but we still don’t get enough information to be able to evaluate their work or the ideology underlying it. So we are left to fill in the gaps and to draw conclusions tentatively. Concerning this case, I know only what was reported in the paper so my assumptions and conclusions are tentative and fully open to becoming better informed should anyone bless us accordingly.
We are told that CYFS removed two children, a girl aged 5 years and a boy aged barely 1 year, from their mother and father. One version of the story attributed the removal to the mother’s inability to cope with the children on her own. But then we are told that the mother went to a Women’s Refuge and the kind staff there dobbed her in to CYFS when she dared to suggest that she did not want the police to proceed with charges of domestic violence against the children’s father. This is a big no-no for Women’s Refuge whose pamphlets amount to gender hate speech, openly encouraging women to break up their families at the slightest suspicion that their husbands may react physically, or indeed show anger or do any of the many things that feminism has defined as violent power and control behaviour when a man does it (but an understandable response given her oppressed condition when a woman does it).
The children’s father, we are told, had a protection order against him preventing him from seeing his family because he had assaulted the mother. No mention is made of any conviction for assault so we can assume the allegations had not been tested or proven. Never mind, who needs proof to wreck a family? Of course, we know that police now do not need a complainant to press charges for domestic violence, so if they had anything approaching evidence they most certainly would have prosecuted. The mother herself is quoted as telling the police she participated in “verbal arguments that turned into punching and pushing”, and that she felt she shared some responsibility for the incidents of domestic violence. Oh boy, didn’t she know that kind of talk just isn’t allowed? Apostasy. Nevertheless, feminists have convinced NZ lawmakers that any man accused of domestic violence of any kind against his wife must automatically be treated as if he will also be violent to his children who therefore need to be deprived of his love and caring. So it was with our man in this story, and when his wife could not cope with her maternal role after being forced to live without him, CYFS saw it as better to remove the children completely rather than to let their father care for them.
Sadly but not uncommonly, CYFS’ medicine turned out to be much worse than the condition. We are told that the 5-year-old girl was sexually abused while in CYFS care. Although the mother had “walked away” as soon as the children were removed from her, she changed her mind upon hearing about the sexual abuse. By this stage it appears that her husband was living with her again, but despite this CYFS decided to return the children to her. We might speculate as to the reason for this and of course a prime contender would be that CYFS hoped by returning the children that the parents would not make a big deal of the sexual abuse on CYFS’ watch. So keen were CYFS to implement their plan that through an “oversight” they did not undertake either the parental assessment or the family group conference they are required to do before returning children.
Then incredibly sadly, within two days of the children being returned to the mother she is alleged to have deliberately left the 1-year-old boy to drown in a deep bath.
So, under our enlightened child protection and family law systems we have one child drowned, another who now has to live with the effects of sexual abuse, a mentally unwell mother whose life will now be ruined through grief and possibly lengthy imprisonment, and a father whose grief and anger must be extreme. We don’t know what has become of the 5-year-old girl; has her father been allowed to provide ongoing comfort and security to her or has she again been thrown from pillar to post due to misandry?
Now imagine if Women’s Refuge, CYFS and the Courts had been able to act sensibly. In that case they may have recognized that the relationship conflict was largely due to the mother’s poor mental health and her resulting difficult or neglectful behaviour. The father may have been listened to and shown some understanding concerning his frayed, perhaps even self-defensive, reactions. The domestic incident(s) may have been seen more accurately as two people fighting, and the couple given help to address their conflict rather than have an ideological grenade thrown at their family. When the mother was found to be unable to care for the children safely, the father may have been called upon to do so while she received help, thereby providing the children with the best protector available and the least disruption to their emotional security. The mother may have been able to benefit from culturally appropriate help in the secure context of her intact family, rather than being left to fail on her own, prevented from seeking emotional and practical support from her husband. Perhaps the agencies would have been able to weigh up realistically any risk the father presented to the children against the damage inherently caused by breaking up their family and then removing them from both primary attachment relationships. Two children might now be happily growing up in a family that had benefited from understanding and help rather than being further damaged by ideological warfare, nanny-state arrogance, male blaming and punishment.
Will the lawmakers and domestic violence industry acknowledge errors in their ideology and learn from this experience? Look out your window to check for flying pigs. But maybe, just maybe, a new tide of common sense and wisdom is building, destined soon to roll on our shores and wash away the foolish experiment of family-wrecking, male-bashing ideology.
Mother Accused of Drowning her Son. More information has been coming out about this tragic case. This article makes it clear that Womens Refuge trampled over her clearly expressed need to be with her husband. It also mentions that if the woman is seen as having deliberately left her baby son to drown, her lawyer will try to get the conviction downgraded to infanticide. Infanticide is a sexist law, an offence category only available to women who kill their children, with a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment when a man who did exactly the same thing would receive a life sentence.
Refuge staff told the Court that the woman had “left her children unattended at a safe house” while she went to the police station “to be with her husband who was in the cells for assaulting her”. The Refuge staff also claimed that the woman had said that she wanted to stay with her husband and did not care if the children were uplifted by CYFS.
However, yet another article tells us that the woman had arranged for another person at the Refuge to look after the children while she went to the police station, and her purpose for going there was to try to get police to drop charges of assault against him.
So what can we make of all this. Here’s my guess: The woman wanted, in fact needed her husband, having recently moved to NZ and finding the situation difficult. She also acknowledged her part in escalating the domestic incidents leading to charges against her husband. Womens Refuge does not tolerate women who are honest about their own role in domestic incidents, or those who want or need to rescue their marriages and she had been threatened that CYFS would remove her children if she did so. The woman responded by remaining assertive about her decision to return to her husband and made it clear that any decisions or threats by CYFS would not deter her. Refuge then turned against her for daring to go against their preference and their man-hate campaign. Refuge staff lied to CYFS about the children having been left unattended. CYFS then became more involved, bullying the woman in their normal way with threats to remove children if she continued her relationship with a man they disapprove of (even when no risk to children has been established). When CYFS realized the woman was determined to save her marriage they pressured her to sign a consent for them to remove her children, making it clear they would do so anyway whether she signed or not.
The services we as taxpayers fund to help women, families and children have become ideological monsters. These agencies prioritize their own feminist missionary zeal over the best interests of children and vulnerable families. They feel so secure in their fantasy of moral superiority that they deny or ignore the huge damage they are perpetrating against those they are supposed to be helping. The score in this case: a demolished family, a broken and blamed mother, a bereft and blamed father, a sexually abused girl and a drowned boy. How many notches on the belts of CYFS and Women’s Refuge do you think these great results will earn?
Wow! Hans I had no idea this blatant anti-male sexism existed in NZ.
Thanks for enlightening me.
I think this is Vivianna refuge and if so, it’s the most father friendly refuge in the country that refused to be part of the collective because of the anti male ideology.
I can’t see where the woman stated she was responsible for being assaulted in the article but if it’s there, it’s there. If it’s a guess, I wonder if another could be that she loves him and didn’t want him in jail?
Anyways, how sad for everyone involved.
I can’t see where I made any such claim. This is an example of misrepresenting an argument in order to be able to attack it so you can pretend you have refuted the original argument.
In my post I made it clear that I was making a guess at how the story really went. My guesses were based on considerable experience around such cases.
Also, nothing in my hypothetical events suggested this woman saw herself as “responsible for being assaulted”. She may however have seen herself as responsible for, and I quote myself, “her part in escalating the domestic incidents leading to charges against her husband”. When people judge another’s wrongdoing, if they have any sense of fairness they will take responsibility for any wrongdoing of their own that was involved. That doesn’t mean a fair person condones the other’s bad action or takes responsibility for it, but might show more understanding and less moral indignation about it.
Further, one of the articles on which my suggested expose was based said of the domestic incidents:
This is the reality shown clearly by independent research but deliberately distorted and denied by many in the domestic violence industry. Domestic violence usually (though not always) involves two people in conflict each resorting to some level of physical, verbal and emotional violence. This woman’s evaluation of her husband’s violence included some fair recognition of her own in the situation. From your response, you seem to prefer a story involving the man as the only abuser and woman as the only victim, based on politically-motivated propaganda we are fed from Women’s Refuge and the domestic violence industry.
Hans, a friend told me I can make my comments kinder and that I should work on this. I’m going to take her advice and change some of the ways I approach the issues and I’m letting you know because I didn’t mean anything negative with my question.
I couldn’t see where she accepted responsibility and thank-you for pointing it out. Still a very sad situation and TBH, I’m glad she did reflect because I’ve heard from someone who did some work on Viviana and he said the women behaved terribly just because he was a male.
An interesting news story today: A man showed a woman…(gasp)…his genitals and the police were reported to be out in force scouring the area to find this flasher. Obviously burglaries and frauds are thought to be much less harmful than…(gasp)…showing male genitals.
Sure, flashing can be jarring and a small proportion of flashers escalate to more serious sexual offending. It’s quite appropriate for a society to set moral standards for behaviour and to punish transgressions thereof. But how unreal are we becoming in our moral panic around male bodies and behaviour when much more damaging social violence is neglected?
Also of interest, yet another false rape claim is exposed. Of course, the young woman’s lies are understood as “clearly a cry for help of a different kind from a young person”. Well, maybe. Just as likely though it may have been some smokescreen to cover up her own wrongdoing, or a way of being the centre of attention, or simply an amusement. If a 16yo boy made up a story about women doing terrible wrong to him, we could expect police charges and school suspensions instead of only steps “to ensure that she has the help she needs”.
Another issue of relevance to the false rape claim is that police are hamstrung in early detection efforts of false claims, because of feminist insistence that all claims by women should be treated as true. Close questioning and scrutiny of such claims is now unacceptable, so enormous police resources are now wasted before the truth comes out. The detective who decided not to progress Louise Nicholas’ complaint paid a heavy price for assessing the evidence around a woman’s allegations.
The man showed his genitals? How different is that to a female wandering virtually naked (Topless, very brief bikini bottomm)on the beach or the boobs on bikes parade?
Having villified and rejected male wisdom in rearing children, a confused society slides ever faster to collapse: 1 2
Quote from Article 2: “He had the support of his mother and stepfather but was not living with them.” -Unquote.
Note: Stepfather is no substitute for real father.
Quote from the late Laurie O’Reilly, Commissioner for children from 1994 until his death in 1996: “The most serious problem facing NZ is children growing up in fatherless homes”
That 2nd article is a real doozey Hans. It’s a good instructive read for anyone with a tendency to believe in the moral supremacy of women.
It starts out reading like an extraordinary assault of a teen girl by a random man in his twenties, kicking her face in with steel-capped boots in a public street. It’s not until one reads further that the actual picture emerges: the girl was set upon by a gang of her peers. The incident appears to have been provoked by, overseen and participated in by girls her own age known to her, for a very feminine motive. The man convicted appears to be a simpleton passer-by who was asked to kick the girl by the gang.
For all those of a feminist bent who are too sensitive to bear anything that might imply women are anything less than perfect, and who have helped pass laws over the last few decades that exempt women from penalty for the evil that they do, this is what’s in store for you – you will be ruled over by women like these. Cruel, violent psychopaths confident in the immunity that you granted them. Men no longer feel any sense of care for your welfare and will do nothing to intervene, other than stand at a distance filming it all so that the rest of the world can enjoy the spectacle on YouTube.
Good work girls! You sure showed us.
The inevitable outcome of generations of institutionalized fatherlessness and Girrrrl power.
Violence like the one described in “2” are so common in the US that they aren’t even reported anymore. It’s considered “normal”. And to the extent that a report may get onto the sixth page of a newspaper, they wouldn’t dare suggest that the motive for beating a girl is that she was cheating and they wouldn’t even get to the point that there were girls involved at all. The publisher would be sued by the Nat’l Organization for Women (NOW). It would have stopped at the boy kicking her. He just came up and randomly and spontaneously beat her. That’s all.
That being said, it struck me that “2” identifies motive of beating the girl because she was cheating on her boy-friend. I’m somehow touched by the recognition by these young people that there’s something wrong with that – that cheating and adultery and fraud are very serious crimes. They didn’t learn it from the courts, that’s for sure. So, it must be something innate. Maybe there’s hope for humanity yet. These young people just need to be taught more constructive ways to deal with such developments. Then they can teach our courts.