MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

A Personal Experience of Police Sexism

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 7:42 am Sun 6th November 2011

I attended a protest on Friday in Auckland outside the Family Court, in the hope that it would encourage people to make submissions for the current government review of the Family Court. This review is a very rare opportunity to encourage change.

When I arrived at the protest I met another protester there for the first time in person. I made it clear to him what I thought of his unnecessary and dishonest attacks against me here on MENZ previously. He must not have liked the honest feedback and suddenly he physically assaulted me, ripping my shirt and attempting to punch me. I was not prepared to descend to his thuggery so I moved away from him and called the police about his assault. I made it clear to the police that the assault was not very serious because I took evasive action, and that I would feel resolved about the situation if a warning were issued to the violent party. The police interviewed him and me and refused to do anything further, apparently viewing the offender’s violence as ok and just arising out of conflict between us. They instructed me to keep away from the violent offender, and they were behaving as if, without actually saying it, they were issuing me with a warning too for, well, I’m not sure what for.

In my opinion the attitude and decisions taken by the police were simply another example of sexism. If it had been a woman with ripped clothing complaining that a man had assaulted her because he didn’t like what she had said to him, you can bet the police would have wanted to charge the man and they would have treated the woman sensitively as a victim albeit of rather ineffective violence. If the assaulted female in exactly the same circumstances indicated (as I did) that she would not press charges, the police would probably have told the offender to leave the situation at least. But because I was a male, the violence against me was seen as ok and I was issued with a police direction as if I was also an offender.

The violent thug was of course Jim Bailey, showing his true colours.


  1. If I were in your position Hans, I would front up at the local Police Station and request they accept my complaint. If they refused to interview me and take a written statement, I’d be telephoning the Secretary for Police immediately. I suspect the cop was just a lazy pr!ck avoiding work.
    I was involved in a similar incident where a Porirua Police officer refused to respond to, or accept a complaint for, a female assaults male allegation. After ringing the Secretary for Police the matter was quickly resolved to my satisfaction.

    I suspected the alleged offender was Jim Bailey prior to reading your last sentence. Much of what he writes is disturbing to me. I’m not surprised that his writing may in fact reflect a disturbed personality.

    Comment by Wayne — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 9:39 am

  2. Thanks Wayne. I have now made a complaint to the so-called Independent Police Complaints Authority. Although I expect they will quickly whitewash over my complaint, I think it important to raise awareness about the gender double standards shown by police, and more importantly to let them know that men can see this.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 10:28 am

  3. what happened to the good old days.. if the cops dont want to know..smack the tosser in the chops and be done with it

    Comment by Ford — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 12:19 pm

  4. Consider if Jim Bailey is in fact woman.
    Therefore (s)he has every defence: (s)he attacked you because:
    (1) you provoked him;
    (2) you were controlling him;
    (3) you might have been drinking;
    (4) you were threatening him (by your very mere presence);
    (5) (s)he felt threatened by you (whether or not you were in fact threatening);
    (6) you were thinking violent thoughts;
    (7) (s)he was fearful that you *might* be violent (and therefore had to act first;
    (8) (s)he had endured *years* of domestic violence, and therefore had finally *snapped*;
    (9) (s)he was probably sexually abused by her father;
    (10) and finally, women aren’t violent. Men are violent. Everyone knows that.

    Accordingly, I sentence you, Mr Laven, to have to vacate your family home (even though you bought it years before Ms. Bailey moved in); supervised contact with your children (1 hour per fortnight should suffice); a protection order in respect of Ms. Bailey; oh and 16-week attendance at a Stopping Violence Programme.
    Good day.

    Comment by Family Curt Judge — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 1:17 pm

  5. the 16 week violence course gets living without violence i was told i had to attend had a female advocator and a get a womens point of veiw..part of the discussion was about anger being the same emotion in everyone..everyone has different ways of dealing with it and some need to learn how yet a womens living without violence only runs/ran for 6 weeks..pussy pass?

    Comment by Ford — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 1:31 pm

  6. Hans,
    sorry to hear of your situation.
    A word of warning, mindful it may be something you’re already aware of.
    It’s something I’ve written about in detail at MENZ on another thread.
    Some years ago I was sexually assaulted by a young American woman who for some insane reason took it upon herself to walk across a small dancefloor to where I was standing enjoying listening to the music played and thrust her hand down the front of my trousers.
    I went to the police station and was met by macho BS with comments to the effect of ‘You should be so lucky mate’. As you note had I been a woman and she a man it would conversely have been all chivalrists on deck and the assailant hunted down and brought to justice.
    Outraged at this lack of appropriate response from the police I made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority.
    A few days later a grim faced, thickset PCA official visited me at my office. From the moment he walked into my office it was apparent I was seen as a thorn in his side. He had one objective to whitewash the whole incident. The most he would offer was to have the matter ‘dealt with internally’ by having the duty sergeant ‘speak to the officers involved’. It was pathetic, and a big wake up call for me about chivalrous police corruption in NZ.
    By chance I met the young woman a few months later and was able to respectfully voice my disgust. Asking around I found out her name and made it my business to spread word in her community about her behavior. She left the areas shortly after that. Whether it was because her local community has dispensed some natural justice by shunning her or she had other reasons to leave I don’t know.
    But every time I hear of situations like yours and hear the words pussy pass in NZ I recall this.
    As you can probably deduce my trust in the NZ Police ability to deal with men as a demographic worthy of justice is diminished to this day.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 2:45 pm

  7. whats wrong with you?..most guys would love a good groping..

    Comment by Ford — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 3:30 pm

  8. It is easy to make someone angry, if you think about it. It is easy to play the victim, if you want to. It is easy to tell your story, when a man can’t defend his position. Just because you know how to a bitch Hans, doesn’t mean you have to be one.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 6:19 pm

  9. Ah but Down Under, I tell the truth.

    Also, I understand and accept that someone may become angry in response to things I say. It’s their anger though, I didn’t make it. In this case I had no plan to manipulate or to provoke anger, simply to express my opinion. I too was angry about past events and I take full responsibility for that anger and the way I expressed it. How another person expresses his anger is his responsibility. If a person cannot handle some straight feedback to the extent that within a minute or so he is becoming physically violent, that’s his responsibility.

    I did not much appreciate being physically attacked, especially as I was holding a video camera around my neck and a stills camera over one shoulder and a guitar over the other. I might well have wanted to take the approach referred to by Ford in reply #3 and believe me I could have made a thorough job of it. However, that would only have placed me at risk of charges for public fighting or worse, and I’m not prepared to allow someone to place me in that situation. So what options are left open to me? What do you suggest? Roll over and accept being assaulted, then meekly keep quiet about it? I’m afraid not. Call me whatever names you wish.

    Finally, if the police had brought about the very reasonable redress I sought, that would have been enough. They didn’t, and it wasn’t enough, and here I am bitching about it.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th November 2011 @ 9:20 pm

  10. Down under what? a rock?
    Jesus. Get a grip.
    Hans has every right to both complain to the police and expect his complaint of being assaulted to be dealt with by them seriously and expediently.
    That’s what he pays taxes for duh!
    Would you rather he duke it out with a fist fight in public?
    Listen, call me a bitch or whatever other cheap petty slanderous term comes to mind.
    If anyone attempts to set about me physically I’ll call the police pronto too – and expect proper treatment from them when they respond.
    It’s called civilization.
    BTW Hans thanks for the heads up – I’ll be very careful if I’m ever in Jim’s close proximity.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 2:05 am

  11. the police should do thier job instead of choosing which event interests them the most but if they wont do their job there are other options

    Comment by Ford — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 4:26 am

  12. The juxtaposition here would be two women at a protest having a go at each other. Sorry people not prepared to buy into such illiterate rubbish.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 6:35 am

  13. Juxtaposition = Side issue/Avoiding the issue.
    And then the cherry on the top – the issue avoided gets labelled ‘illiterate rubbish’.
    Apparently in Down Under’s world we men shouldn’t expect help from police when physically accosted.
    Dude really. That’s so civilized!

    Change that to Down Under a rock with head in sand.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 10:43 am

  14. Now skeptic you do disappoint me when you lose your objectivity. “The post is about a personal experience of police sexism.”

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 2:58 pm

  15. Yes, Down Under.
    Very well done.
    You got that bit right – the post is indeed about “a personal experience of police sexism”.
    Duh! Like I needed that explaining to me.

    And then after that indignity they get called a bitch for having the good grace and generosity to write and warn others about the assailant and the pathetic sexist police response.

    Thanks again Hans.
    This has been very enlightening.

    Comment by SKeptic — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 7:31 pm

  16. I thin DownUnder may be right. I can’t see an arrest happening if a couple of women had a pushing match either. There’s enough serious sexism to contend with.

    Comment by rc — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 9:12 pm

  17. Mmm, I don’t recall seeing anything in the laws on assault suggesting that the offence is limited to certain gender relationships between accused and complainant. I must have missed that bit.

    The analogy of “two women having a go at each other” is not a good one for the situation here. Regardless, suggesting that a woman’s assault against either a woman or a man shouldn’t be taken seriously buys in to exactly the same attitude commonly shown by police.

    Bailey’s assault on me did not involve a “pushing match”. I did no assaulting, pushing or even touching. I briefly expressed to him what I thought of his dishonest and unnecessary attacks on me over the internet in the past.

    I don’t recall either seeing anything in our assault laws suggesting that it’s ok to physically assault someone because you don’t like what they’re saying. I must have missed that bit too.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 9:25 pm

  18. hans..havent you mastered ‘reading between the lines’ need some female experts to show you how

    Comment by Ford — Mon 7th November 2011 @ 10:33 pm

  19. Hans, we all hear about these conflicts and they still don’t help.

    What do you suggest?

    With due respect, I think it’s best if you leave the protesters alone. Especially now as they’re getting good media coverage.

    I made it clear to the police that the assault was not very serious because I took evasive action, and that I would feel resolved about the situation if a warning were issued to the violent party.

    Lol, I’ve never seen people get to dictate how police react and it’s not a feeling of resolve you would have gotten IMO.


    When you instigate conflict and go to the police because you don’t like the reaction you get, all that happens is that the other party and onlookers learn to distrust you.


    I am only writing about this because I put effort into getting media attention and these protests aren’t just about men. 15 days and counting – hope y’all vote. 😉

    Comment by julie — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 8:19 am

  20. OMG, you’re right Ford! I just noticed all that stuff between the lines of our legislation. It even mentions the gender-specific syndrome ‘Offended Woman’s Syndrome’, caused by a husband saying things a wife doesn’t like. This renders the sufferer totally incapable of using any of the numerous legitimate avenues available to her for support and protection from her husband’s honest feedback. Once afflicted, all she can reasonably be expected to do is physically attack the husband or perhaps carefully plan and carry out his murder while he lies asleep at night, then hide his body and cleverly deceive everyone who comes looking for him. Once she has asserted that she suffers from this disease she can’t morally be held accountable for her actions, she can only be defended and understood and her unevidenced excuses for her behaviour automatically believed.

    Recent events make it clear there is a male version of this syndrome too; I think it’s called ‘Battered Sausage Syndrome’ and it may be related to Freud’s ‘Penis Envy’. Battered Sausage Syndrome can result from the terrible trauma of hearing honest feedback. It renders the sufferer incapable of self-control and forces him to launch an immediate physical attack on a person who talks to him like that. The unfortunate men who have caught this disease also cannot be held morally or legally accountable for their actions.

    It’s impressive that government has been able to weave such proven medical science into the ‘between the lines’ content of our written legislation!

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 9:03 am

  21. hans..women distorting and not wanting to know the truth..its all his fault

    Comment by Ford — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 9:58 am

  22. Thanks for your opinion Julie (reply #19). True colours have a habit of seeping out.

    When you instigate conflict and go to the police because you don’t like the reaction you get…

    Mmm, is that what you say to women who inform you that they were assaulted for saying the wrong thing? Do you criticize a woman for going to the police just because she didn’t like her partner assaulting her when she expressed her opinion? That’s interesting Julie.

    I may have ‘instigated conflict’ on Friday by expressing my opinion, but actually the conflict was instigated some time ago through unprovoked and dishonest attacks against me over the internet. That conflict could have been resolved at any stage since those attacks by some manning up, taking responsibility and apologizing by the offending party. Yes, I take full responsibility for choosing to express my opinion on Friday rather than sweeping the unresolved conflict under the carpet and pretending everything was hunky dory. It wasn’t and I didn’t. I accept that criticism of my choice is justified on various grounds.

    I was faced with several tough calls though. The way I see it is that if we don’t stand up to bullies, if instead we say nothing and pretend everything’s fine, then we can only expect them to continue their bullying behaviour. The law allows us few options for standing up to bullies. We are entitled to free speech and we are entitled to expect that others will respect our right to free speech. Ironically, Bailey was at the protest exercising precisely that right. We are also told “Don’t take the law into your own hands; call the police”. So I ask again, what do you suggest a person does if they have been assaulted?

    If you wish to collude with physical violence, if you think it’s ok for Bailey or anyone else to assault people, that’s your choice. But I sure hope you have the integrity to maintain the same moral position when it comes to other assaulted people including women.

    I think it’s best if you leave the protesters alone

    I was one of the protesters!

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 10:26 am

  23. My apologies Hans. It wasn’t my intention to doubt your account of what happened. I accepted it as you stated it. My reference to ‘pushing match’ was how I expect a police officer to have summed up the situation, since you make no mention of injury. My personal experience has been that they tend to act if there is blood or breakage, otherwise they tend to dismiss it.

    Comment by rc — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 11:42 am

  24. Thanks rc, Skeptic and others for fair-minded consideration of the situation. I don’t seek sympathy or even support here but I seek:
    (i) to speak up
    (ii) to hold someone accountable for his violence
    (iii)to hold the state accountable for gender double standards and
    (iv)to stimulate awareness and thinking about moral positions on such matters.
    In this, I do hope for fair and balanced judgements from readers.

    I accept responsibility for my actions during the brief interaction and I acknowledge that if I had handled it differently then the further developments may not have happened. However, I don’t take responsibility for another’s response to me and I don’t accept that this particular response was either forced, proportionate or acceptable.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 12:17 pm

  25. Hans,
    Good to see you standing up to Julie.

    As folks are aware you’ve been told repeatedly to stop sending me e-mails.
    Yet I check my e-mail bin, and lo and behold there is yet another spam e-mail from you.
    I took the trouble to read this one as the mind of a female stalker kind of fascinates me in a way – I’m trying to understand how someone could be so depraved.
    The e-mail contains the following –

    I am trying to get Debbie to spend some of her busy time on menz. But then I worry that she is concerned that a couple of us know what went down with her.

    I am going to love watching you fall for her. She has money AND invests. She thinks she’s great as do you.

    My first reaction to seeing this apart from feeling annoyed and harassed was who the hell is Debbie?
    I post it here to show folks something I think they should be aware of.
    I’ll keep any future e-mails I get from her as well as this public record that I want NO further contact by e-mail from her.
    If she persists I’ll consider getting more officious about the matter.

    Comment by SKeptic — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  26. female bullies can inflict some pretty nasty invisible injuries all the while crying wolf and squealing victim

    Comment by Ford — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 1:00 pm

  27. i get the impression julie treats this site like a dating site or is she just trying to see if she can play one of the male posters

    Comment by Ford — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 1:05 pm

  28. Hans, not that this information is of use to you, but, women are red flagged when they contact the police and cyf investigate if they have children. Red flagged means you cannot work with children, elderly, sick, disabled etc because the red flag comes up when an employer police checks you. This has already been taken to the HRC and they won’t take it on.

    Sadly, many women still learn the hard way but there’s a down trend showing they’re wising up as the whole.


    As for you and Jim, well, I’m not surprised. The good side is that you’ll teach the police a lesson by them having to write a report for the independent complaints authority. Next time they’ll know not to let the situation alone else they could be writing another report.

    Comment by julie — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 2:33 pm

  29. Get real Guys, I think Julie sums it up pretty well. There is absolutely no excuse for physical violence. In this case probably caused by the attackers inability to match the fluency of his victim!

    As Men we should welcome and respect a man with Hans Mana and respect Julie as a lady. Both are doing a lot for the movement.

    Are those that decry them going to make the effort of a submission? They should? The more the merrier and we may, just may see change.

    As you finish writing, don’t forget the green paper on Children!

    Comment by Alastair — Tue 8th November 2011 @ 7:57 pm

  30. Hi Alistair, I had a good talk this morning with another third party about Han’s and Jim’s situation and believe Kerry is involved also though I don’t know how much.

    I also had a good talk to a third party about you. Sorry to say my friend but things are not good and they have to change for it’s unfair to all of us who give our precious time to create change.

    Besides outsiders (those overseas) we (as in me involved too) all are on the same side and the ‘putting each other down’ is as it has always been …. destroying the causes we stand for.


    I hear the heartbreaks (sharing) when people are losing clients and support because of the online infighting. It is really, really really really bad. My gosh, we should have everything sorted by now.

    Sadly, this is not the case with Hans as it is offline too. Me and Jim fight online but offline you’d never know. I bet Jim is concerned about Hans as this is and will affect all the work he and others have done over the years.


    Alastair, we need to talk. As someone who has moments of hospitalisation, I can relate to much.

    Comment by julie — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 2:21 pm

  31. of all the sites and messageboards ive frequented and written on they all have the same shit going on..always bitch fighting and crap going on behind the scenes..they all run in a similar vein

    Comment by Ford — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 2:34 pm

  32. Skeptic says,

    Good to see you standing up to Julie.

    Skeptic. you were a feminist and then left NZ to join a whole league of men loving Thailand, Japan and Korea women. Whether you went through a teaching program of Buddhism means little.

    You act like an extremist for it’s one way or the other for you and you can’t understand the 80% who want balance.

    Don’t you get that you have nothing to offer men but conflict whether you made them feminists or make them masculinist?

    All that you offer men and women is 2 choices when infact they have the choice not to hate each other, full stop.
    Perhaps you can rethink which takes an open mind or perhaps you can only think one way.

    did none of you older MRAs think about the future or did you only war for a moment?

    Comment by julie — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 3:28 pm

  33. Ford, oh gosh. I am speechless when it comes to you. Is there anything you don’t know?

    Comment by julie — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 3:38 pm

  34. #32 – Another load of emotive unintelligible drivel full of wild fantasy rather than facts from the stalker troll.

    Thankfully I get an entirely different message from those who appreciate my input.

    Comment by SKeptic — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 6:19 pm

  35. Julie I certainly appreciate your lucid and reasoned input.

    Comment by Alastair — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 6:25 pm

  36. BTW,
    I’m proud to offer men and women examples of speaking out confidently when it comes to dealing with feminists and their chivalrous white knight lackeys.
    I’m not the person I was in days gone by.

    If you saw the contents of my e-mail bin piled up with stalker nonsense from Julie I think you’d whistle another tune – lucid and reasoned – LMAO!

    Comment by Skeptic — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 6:49 pm

  37. speechless you say? bet it wont last

    Comment by Ford — Wed 9th November 2011 @ 8:00 pm

  38. Ford says,

    speechless you say? bet it wont last

    You’re right about this – I sure feel the need to protest and be a speaker for presentations, write submissions and email everyone who has the power to change things plus, plus, plus. But I know that’s not what you mean. 😉

    Comment by julie — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 10:40 am

  39. Skeptic says,

    Thankfully I get an entirely different message from those who appreciate my input.

    Yeah, well I’ve been one of these people appreciating you going back to 2006 and I nagged you through emails because I wanted more of your voice.

    Sadly, you also have a nasty side to you and when I’d email you to say, “Hey, TVNZ or radio stations or newspapers are watching this site over the next few days as they didn’t know there was a men’s voice, you’d spend the next days attacking and belittling me so they never made a report/article’/interview etc.

    If you saw the contents of my e-mail bin piled up with stalker nonsense from Julie I think you’d whistle another tune – lucid and reasoned – LMAO!

    You mean the emails you’ve selected to keep as amo against me.

    Skeptic, why don’t you put your best ‘destroy Julie’ work forward cause you’re not a victim and I’m not going to feed into your ‘it’s all about me’ attitude.

    Y’know, I deal with people all the time who expect professionalism from others in this and I remind them others are just clients themselves for they’ve been through allot and are either still in it or trying to find a way to build their strength and find a new identity.

    No woman can reach your over the top expectations of them and this is how you keep yourself safe and under lock and key. How am I any different from you though I do things differently?

    Comment by julie — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 10:46 am

  40. Hey all, I am nice person IMO but I also take responsibility for my errors in life. I can only imagine everyone is wondering what I did to Skeptic that was bad. (a sin against the MRM)

    Well, I told him I loved him. More than 3 times.

    As he says, men should be treated like women and if a man did what I did to a woman, gosh, he should have phoned the police for sexual harassment. For real, under feminism men should imprison women for their weaknesses. Below is a small part of my activism …

    Comment by Julie — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 11:25 am

  41. A whole week without being e-mail stalked with creepy I love you messages.

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 12:02 pm

  42. julie.. emails selected to keep as amo against you are still emails sent

    Comment by Ford — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 12:28 pm

  43. A whole week without being e-mail stalked with creepy I love you messages.Bliss!

    You poor babe, never again will I show such feelings. But I am wondering “have you dated when I stopped for that means I grew from then” …. be a big boy and give dates.

    Comment by Julie — Thu 10th November 2011 @ 1:12 pm

  44. I find you, Mr. Skeptic guilty of spurning a woman’s advances, and thereby offending her feelings and emotions. Such psychological abuse must not be tolerated. When a woman demands your affections, you must oblige withour undue delay. Failure to do so amounts to you controlling and manipulating her well-being.
    Accordingly, I sentence you, Mr Skeptic, to subjection of protection order in favourof Ms. Julie; and 16-week attendance at a Stopping Violence Programme.
    Good day.

    Comment by Family Court Judge — Fri 11th November 2011 @ 7:41 pm

  45. For once Mr Family court Judge I believe the court did well well and got it correct in awarding a protection order.

    Comment by Alastair — Fri 11th November 2011 @ 7:47 pm

  46. my past experiences have shown me that saying ‘no’ to a woman can easily be manipulated as controlling and not respecting her truth..what a pile of horseshit that is..when a woman says no shes exercising her rights…headcases

    Comment by Ford — Fri 11th November 2011 @ 8:40 pm

  47. Remember that old truism, Women are ruled by emotion and feelings, men are ruled by logic and fact!

    Oh with a few exceptions on both sides!

    Comment by Alastair — Fri 11th November 2011 @ 8:55 pm

  48. Family Court Judge said…

    I find you, Mr. Skeptic guilty of spurning a woman’s advances, and thereby offending her feelings and emotions. Such psychological abuse must not be tolerated. When a woman demands your affections, you must oblige withour undue delay. Failure to do so amounts to you controlling and manipulating her well-being.
    Accordingly, I sentence you, Mr Skeptic, to subjection of protection order in favourof Ms. Julie; and 16-week attendance at a Stopping Violence Programme.
    Good day.

    No complaints please Skeptic. You got off lightly. If it was Mexico you’d be up for a five-stretch.

    Comment by gwallan — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 2:44 am

  49. i knew a young maori couple once..they were my neighbors..he were a small man at a guess..she about 75kg or so..taller than him..they had a domestic and she beat him up and slashed him arm with a broken glass..the cops told him the only reason he wasnt going to jail was because he had the was the only thing that saved him..i dont recall her being arrested or charged with anything

    Comment by Ford — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 7:57 am

  50. And Confucius say “Rape is impossible! Woman with skirts up can run faster than man with pants down”

    Comment by Alastair — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 8:48 am

  51. Family Court Judge said”¦

    I find you, Mr. Skeptic guilty of spurning a woman’s advances, and thereby offending her feelings and emotions. Such psychological abuse must not be tolerated. When a woman demands your affections, you must oblige withour undue delay. Failure to do so amounts to you controlling and manipulating her well-being.
    Accordingly, I sentence you, Mr Skeptic, to subjection of protection order in favourof Ms. Julie; and 16-week attendance at a Stopping Violence Programme.
    Good day.

    Your Most Magnificent Honor,
    I will comply and spend the 16 weeks looking at the darkness in my heart which led me to such a terrible crime. I will try to learn from the course leaders Neville Robertson and Gail Ratcliffe how to take my rightful place supplicant before the almighty Vag.
    Just one question.
    If I complete the 16 weeks Living With Violence course I think my local community will brand me an imminent risk which will scotch my chances at any future employment, housing rental, loans and relationships.
    So could you write me a letter upon completion of the course stating that I’m not a pedo-rapist misogynist which I could then wear visibly around my neck at all times – or send me to a Mexican jail instead? I think I’d prefer the latter as it means 5 years where I’ll be safe from re-offending female feelings.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 12th November 2011 @ 11:28 am

  52. Well, Well, WELL – 2 GateKeepers toying with the Police in the last week or 2 – One kept in overnight to cool down – Both advisors on MENZ and Paul’s News, proving themselves unwise – Hanz has lead the so called MEN and their FAMILIES Movement a marry dance as GateKeepers do as to what happened at the **Broken FAMILY Caught DEMO** – The Police were filming the whole DEMO to gather any excuse to close us down as usual, although to my knowledge that has never happened, so they have the truth on 2 separate vids yet alone ours – That will embarrass Hanz and those who enjoy the TalkFeasts
    Firstly – One of the many vids to show part of what I actually did at the DEMO –!/photo.php?v=2309570776754
    Secondly – My Statement to be used in Court should Hanz win the right to progress his claim or the Police bring him to prosecution.
    I placed my whole forearm against Hanz chest in order to hold him off bearing down on me as he yelled abuse after realising who I was as we shook hands – I held his shirt to steady myself while I recovered from the shock at his reactions – Kerry Bevin had assured me that our differences would not be aired in public and that was my intention. So my guard was down. Note i used my right hand – Should I have been on attack I would of used my left arm leaving my right ready to handle whatever happened next. Hanz ripped his shirt as he pulled away from me quickly upon realising he was not in control and ran over to the Police (Mummy) who laughed at him, having seen the whole thing. – It was obvious who the aggressor was. – On viewing the vids (See my FaceBOOK) it is obvious both he and Craig Jackson are disturbed at my banter against the FC, Lawyers, Judges, Phsycologists, Counsellors and their Bureaucratic support.
    It has now become clear that they, assisted by XMEN’S Banquet Member, Kerry Bevin, had initiated this DEMO and Forum to begin the process to change the powerbase in the Family Caught from the Legal Fraturnity to the Phsycologist/Counsellor Fraturnity. Or at least place the Phsyc/Con/Frat between Broken Families and the Caught, as in Australia.
    There are NOT too many singing the praises of the new ozzy system other than those profiteering, from further damage to the **WHOLE Natural Biological FAMILY** I. E. Phsyc/Con/Frat, Lawyers and Judges as planned by the UN.
    Of course Boshier will listen to Craig Jackson, Hanz, Kerry and others promoting this self advancing racketeering. It will expand the **Empire of Injustice** beyond his wildest dreams, placing mandatory counselling between Families in distress and the FC and to boot – Suggested by the NZ Men and their FAMILIES Movement. Get this thru quickly and it will BLOCK the wise-ones in the NZ Men and their FAMILIES Movement getting back into Parliament for a few more years as has the debacle with the so called Child Support review – What a scoop!! – In fact 2.
    The so called Child Support review found the Egos Alan Harvey, Andy Wooton and Jim Bailey to comment – They scraped my vids and radio interviews as I did not say what they wanted to hear. Paying so called Child Support is funding the destruction of your own FAMILY – Do the job yourself – If you are BLOCKED in any way Don’t pay so called Child Support. The new legislation in no way takes the reasons away that cause MEN to be so disillusioned they commit suicide – Nor will it alleviate those caught in my situation and on and on it goes – As per usual the GateKeepers took control and BLOCKED real progress for many years to come.
    Onward-TOGETHER-4-FAMILY – That is the **WHOLE Natural Biological FAMILY** as created by God – NOT the UN & Govt lead Eugenics or the Sexual Deviant variety and certainly NOT the GateKeepers – _Jim

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 14th November 2011 @ 3:22 pm

  53. Yeah right #52. I hope there is a video of your assault on me, because it will show just what I described: me talking to you for a minute or less then you assaulting me and attempting to punch me. I understand from the police that you admitted trying to punch me. Your self-excusing lies are almost as pathetic as your paranoia and spelling.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 14th November 2011 @ 8:16 pm

  54. Consider yourself honoured Hans! Darryl & I get slandered and we weren’t within several hundred Km, J think Jim needs his medication adjusted again!

    Comment by Alastair — Mon 14th November 2011 @ 9:08 pm

  55. I just watched the video clip of the demonstration posted above:!/photo.php?v=2309570776754 – although it was probably too small to really qualify as a demonstration.

    Who was the idiot with the loudhailer?

    If he is the face of the men’s movement, we are well and truly shafted.

    Thank goodness EVERYONE who walked past completely ignored him.

    Comment by T Jackson — Thu 17th November 2011 @ 12:51 pm

  56. T Jackson,
    The guy with the loudhailer didn’t seem like an idiot to me.
    Far from it.
    I thought he spoke a lot of sense about the NZ ‘family court’ and CYPS’ roles in family destruction.
    Do you have anything positive to offer to this site?

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 17th November 2011 @ 2:50 pm

  57. How many were there? I counted 6? Heavens the “Occupy” series did better. I probably along with other members of the public, found their language offensive! I equally found their speech slurred. (To many consultations with Dr Speights?)

    Comment by Barnabus — Thu 17th November 2011 @ 3:12 pm

  58. Possibly he isn’t an idiot, but he certainly comes across as a raving nutter with a real chip on his shoulder. In fact, the whole group looks pretty dodgy and is hardly representative of the community.

    Who is he anyway?

    Please tell me he is not a men’s movement leader.

    Comment by T Jackson — Thu 17th November 2011 @ 3:35 pm

  59. Remember that old truism, Women are ruled by emotion and feelings, men are ruled by logic and fact!

    Oh with a few exceptions on both sides!

    Yes it is kind of common knowledge that women are more emotional than men. What doesn’t seem to be common knowledge is the significance of this, and this is all to do with the structure of the human brain.
    The Brain is basically divided into three main sections:

    1 – The archipallium or primitive (reptilian) brain, comprising the structures of the brain stem – medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, the oldest basal nuclei – the globus pallidus and the olfactory bulbs. It corresponds to the reptile brain, also called “R-complex”, by the famous neuroscientist Paul MacLean.

    This is the most primitave part of the brain, responsible for self-preservation and a number of other basic instinctual responses.

    2 – The paleopallium or intermediate (old mammalian) brain, comprising the structures of the limbic system. It corresponds to the brain of the inferior mammals.

    This is the area of the brain where emotions are processed and is present in less “evolved” animals.

    3 – The neopallium, also known as the superior or rational (new mammalian) brain, comprises almost the whole of the hemispheres (made up of a more recent type of cortex, called neocortex) and some subcortical neuronal groups. It corresponds to the brain of the superior mammals, thus including the primates and, consequently, the human species.

    This is the area of the brain where logic and reason are located and is the most evolved part of the human brain. It could even be said that the pinnacle of the evolution of the human brain is logic and reason.
    This is of course a simplified look at the human brain, but the implications of this are enormous. If women are by nature more emotional than men then it stands to reason that they must be utilising the less evolved and more primitive areas of the brain responsible for emotion more than men do. This indicates that the basic mindset of women itself could easily be described as not as evolved as the thinking of men, who are known for their use of logic and reason, which are located in the most developed and evolved parts of the human brain. There are of course exceptions to this.
    In a way we should expect women to behave more like animals because they place more emphasis on thinking using the part of the brain that animals function from.
    Perhaps with this in mind, we should think of the nature of a relationship with a woman more in the same way as we would with a pet.

    Comment by Phoenix — Thu 17th November 2011 @ 4:12 pm

  60. isnt it illegal to do that to an animal?

    Comment by Ford — Thu 17th November 2011 @ 4:21 pm

  61. @Phoenix – Yes!! Women’s brains do process things more primitively. As I’ve said before they are basically psychopaths or at least on average occupy a position higher on a continuum of malignant narcissism than men on average. But no I do not agree that a woman should be treated as a family pet but more like a frenzy-feeding shark. Women are extremely dangerous and unpredictable. They confuse their ability to manipulate and lie and deceive with intelligence when they are anything but.

    Comment by Darryl X — Fri 18th November 2011 @ 12:40 am

  62. T Jackson (#55 and #58): The person on the video with the loud hailer was Jim Bailey whose assaultive behaviour I objected to. I agree that his involvement in the men’s movement has generally been destructive, though I did not disagree with many of his comments on the loud hailer at this particular demonstration.

    Bailey does think of himself as a men’s movement leader and he soon attacks those who dare to disagree with him, who do not fall in line behind him or don’t do things his way. I’m not sure whether that amounts to leadership though.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 27th November 2011 @ 11:42 am

  63. Hans with the greatest of respect, I think you choose the wrong time and place to confront Jim.
    What I mean is that the purpose of that day was to protest against the court. Perhaps Jim’s onlnie behaviour should have been addressed some other time. My 2c.
    I think the cops just made a judgement call that things were not going to esculate and they could leave well enough alone. NZ just doesn’t have enough wealth to deal with every minor altercation.

    Comment by Vman — Mon 28th November 2011 @ 7:10 pm

  64. More pussy pass coming soon”¦.

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Mon 28th November 2011 @ 7:20 pm

  65. #64..1st article..good on the mother for slapping the little tramp atound the ears

    Comment by Ford — Mon 28th November 2011 @ 8:05 pm

  66. I see on Facebook Was demonstrating outside skycity. Where was Jim Baily? I think Daniel Ryder was there though not speaking.

    Well done Julie. I’m proud to stand beside you!

    Comment by Alastair — Mon 28th November 2011 @ 8:35 pm

  67. #65.. would a male be given the sympathy media this woman got??

    Comment by kiran jiharr — Tue 29th November 2011 @ 5:28 pm

  68. Over the Road The National Knees up, Julie did only to well, Looked like Daniel and a couple of others I didn’t know.

    Comment by Barnabus — Tue 29th November 2011 @ 6:29 pm

  69. Vman (#63): Yes, your opinion is a fair enough one and thanks for offering it respectfully. It’s true that I could have avoided expressing my opinion on that day, some would say that would have been better, I take full responsibility for my decision to speak up and I feel ok for having done so. I had just driven all the way from Tauranga, I didn’t know who he was and it took me by surprise when Bailey introduced himself and made some light-hearted comment referring to past disagreements. I am not good at pretending things are ok when in my head they are not, and I did not want to remain at the protest on that basis. So I chose to make it clear that I remained appalled at his quite unnecessary derogation and false accusations against me here on MENZ previously. My idea was that once I had that off my chest there would at least be clarity that I could live with, and indeed did live with, during the remainder of the protest.

    I had tried to resolve the online problems previously but he simply continued his unfounded and totally unnecessary attacks then. I don’t have much interest in him but I would be pleased to hear an apology about the online dishonesty he subjected me to. I doubt any resolution is likely given his presentation, but if he approaches me somewhere acting as though all is forgiven he will get the message that it isn’t. Others may prefer a different response and good luck to them.

    Regardless of the propriety of my choice to speak my mind that day, his physically violent reaction was not my responsibility. Freedom of speech is officially still one of our rights but freedom to assault is not. In my view he needs to take responsibility for his own behaviour and people won’t be doing him any favours by supporting him in not doing so.

    As far as the police issue goes, I am not responsible for the laws imposed on us. We are not allowed to deal with crimes against us as we might like to but we are required to leave enforcement and punishment up to the police and justice system. It’s up to the government either to provide sufficient services or to allow us the freedom to do so ourselves. If Bailey or anyone else assaults me because they don’t like what I’m saying, then they can be sure I will take it further.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 29th November 2011 @ 8:04 pm

  70. I was banned from this site after a certain comment. I can only assume Skeptic got someone to use my name for I would never call him babe.

    But look, the shit didn’t hit the fan until someone starting deleting comments on other people’s articles. I know who did that and why but I forgive and don’t want to go there again as a ‘don’t forget’.

    I know too well what;s going on in the men;s movement as the next MAN does and sure the men’s movement isn’t women’s business.

    You men will sort it out and offline me will sort it our alongside you.

    Comment by Julie — Tue 6th December 2011 @ 8:05 am

  71. You men will sort it out and offline me will sort it our alongside you.

    This is meant to say, “You men will sort it out and offline men(not me) will sort it out alongside you”.

    Hey, it’s good to see J.P accepting Jim Bailey. Seems the outsiders are real different now, lol.

    Comment by Julie — Tue 6th December 2011 @ 8:32 am

  72. #70..didnt you refer to me as ‘babe’ in a post?.im sure you did

    Comment by Ford — Tue 6th December 2011 @ 10:08 pm

  73. Careful there Ford – ‘babe’ LMAO!
    When they get all maternal on ya calling ya ‘babe’ it’s not looking good mate. LOL!

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 6th December 2011 @ 11:14 pm

  74. Skeptic..terms of endearment are the norm for the internet..calling a stranger babe is not something many do in reality..same as 99% of woman ive met on the net has had a stalker too..and now the whole female population seems to be bisexual..either that or will f#@k anything that walks

    Comment by Ford — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 6:53 am

  75. @Ford – Interesting observations. I too have noticed that many if not a majority of women with whom I am acquainted claim to have been stalked, are bisexual or will f#@k anything that walks (or in the case of one feamle acquaintance doesn’t walk because they’er dead – yes, necrophelia). Perhaps these women are genetically predisposed to this behavior, but that is not an excuse because predisposed or not, they still have choices. In the end, they choose to misbehave and then deny any responsibility for their misbehavior. For all the women I know who claim to have been stalked or raped or whatever, my first question of them is that they elaborate upon their experience. Not only does it turn out that they haven’t been stalked, they actually turn out to be the stalker, but are in such denial of their behavior that they have twisted the facts and reality around so much to absolve themselves of any responsibility that they actually believe contrary to any facts that they themselves have provided that they have been stalked. I tell ya, having a conversation like that is maddening and very eye-opening. For all the women I know that are bisexual, and it’s most – seriously, I always ask them when they became aware that they are bisexual and why they behave that way. Not that I’m judgmental but I am curious. Their response is almost always the same: that it was in their late teens or early twenties and because their past relationships with men is too much work. When prodded for elaboration, it always comes down to the same thing: that the men are not always around when the woman wants them to be, that they work too much, that dealing with a man’s intellect and his grounding in reality is too much of a burden to sustain a relationship. It’s as if the women want absolutely no responsibility for the relationship. They do not want to cooperate with a man who is supporting her and their community. Women have become so short-sighted and lazy today that they do not even want to invest in a relationship for long enough to marry and have children so that she can defraud him in divorce. They have become so lazy that all the benefits that come with a temporary family and divorce and child support are not even enough to justify even a short term relationship. It’s gotten that bad. Yes, I’ve noticed that a growing number of women are so lazy that they can’t even be bothered with divorce but opt for a relationship with a woman instead. I do not believe for a moment that any of these women (and there are so many) are genetically disposed to homosexuality. It’s a choice. And worse yet it’s a choice not even of pragmatism or emotion but of convenience. Laziness. One woman I know is so lazy that she doesn’t even want to bother with a relationship with other women but with dead people, men or women. That’s a ridiculous example of just how lazy and opportunistic and depraved women have become just to avoid even the slightest bit of work and responsibility. As I explained, even most women I know who do want a relationship with a man only want a man who they can manipulate and control and not actually invest any effort in. Yes, it’s that pathetic.

    Comment by Darryl X — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 10:37 am

  76. darryl..i have experienced exactly what you describe and agree totally 100%..did my head in big time

    Comment by Ford — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 11:23 am

  77. No wonder there is so much hatred against cops. They are no different than the ones in Iran, only in our case, it is the MEN who are being oppressed. What ever happened to our Constitutional values?

    Comment by Cop Hater — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 9:53 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar