Feminist Bias in New Zealand Media
Western populations may well be starting to realize that they have been manipulated and misled by feminist lies, rubbish research, distorted accounts of history and often unjustified demands to maintain endless victim status. However, a review of news articles any week of the year shows that NZ is still heavily captured by feminist propaganda and happy to promote inequality as long as men are on the losing side.
One positive spur towards fairness to men will almost certainly come from the decision by RADAR to expand its focus from exposing falsehhood regarding domestic violence to exposing misandry in the media. RADAR has achieved considerable success informing both public opinion and legislators in the US concerning facts rather than false propaganda about DV.
We can turn our own radar on recent misandry, male denigration and gender inequality in the news media of NZ. A good place to start is Dunne’s IRD report on so-called ‘child support’. On the day of its release National Radio, paid for through our taxes, saw fit to interview only one feminist lawyer to comment on the possible changes that Dunne seems to prefer. Unsurprisingly, she expressed concern that the proposed changes may be unfair to receiving parents (mainly women) and showed total disregard for the unfairness of the current system on paying parents (mainly men). National Radio did interview other concerned parties over the subsequent two weeks, but its feminist bias is often blatantly evident. It is a shame because generally I love National radio.
Next up, you can always rely on news accounts that hide or play down the gender of men who are victims of violence, whereas gender is usually emphasized or headlined when women are victims. Similarly, the gender of male offenders is usually headlined or emphasized, but not so for female offenders. I prepared the following table concerning recent news articles:
Article Headline |
Offender’s gender in headline |
Victim’s gender in headline |
Victim’s gender mentioned in article |
Victim’s experience described |
|
Male, yes |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
Male, yes |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
Male, yes |
?, no |
?, no |
?, no |
|
|
Male, yes (implied) |
?, no |
?, no |
?, no |
|
|
Male, yes |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
?, no |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
Male, yes |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
Male, no |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, yes |
|
|
Male, no |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
Male, yes |
Male? no |
Male? no |
Male? no |
|
|
Offender unknown |
Male, yes |
Male, yes |
Male, yes |
|
|
Offender unknown |
Male, no |
Male, yes |
Male, no |
|
|
Male, no |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
|
|
Male, no |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
|
|
Male, no |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
|
|
Male, no |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
Female, yes |
Inspection of the table suggests that for violent offences against men, the male gender of the offender is headlined but the male gender of the victim is usually not headlined, and is sometimes not seen as important enough to mention at all throughout the article. For violent offences against women, the female gender of the victim is almost always headlined and always highlighted in the body of articles. The male gender of offenders against women was often not headlined but this appeared to be due to priority given to highlighting the female gender of victims. Further, for male victims of violence articles usually don’t bother to mention much or anything about the traumatic experience of the victim, but for female victims their traumatic experience is always highlighted in some way.
A few specific comments about the articles are in order. First, where there is a question mark about the gender of the victim (because the article gives no clue), it’s a safe bet that those victims were male because if they had been female this would have been headlined or emphasized. Men’s victimization is not seen as very important even though men are much more often the victims of violence in society generally than are women.
Secondly, the frequency of serious violence towards males in our society is easily evident from any monitoring of news. Yet our Human Rights Commission continues year after year to use taxes paid by men and women to fund campaigns that call only for a rejection against violence against women. Perhaps its name should be changed to the “Female-only Rights Commission”.
Thirdly, the article headlined “Man holds up service station with bottle” doesn’t bother to mention the gender of the victim at all, even though it is not a ‘service station’ that is held up but the person behind the counter. Given the late hour of the crime it is likely that it was a sole male attendant behind the counter, men much more often accepting dangerous roles to make a living. But the real giveaway concerning the male gender of the victim is the fact that nothing including gender is mentioned about the victim; if the threatened attendant had been a female, this would have been headlined and repeatedly mentioned, and the distressing effects on her would have been emphasized. In drawing attention to these double standards I am not suggesting that we should not show caring towards the gender and trauma of female victims, but I am calling for real gender equality in how violent crimes are reported. Specifically, I would demand that the frequency with which men are victims of violent crime is made clear through headlines and commentary and that men, who hurt and suffer as much when assaulted or killed, are shown a similar degree of empathy as are female victims.
Fourthly, the article headlined “Suicide case turns into homicide investigation” described a case in which police may have brought gender discrimination into their work. They readily accepted that he must have committed suicide rather than giving due consideration to the possibility that his wife killed him, perhaps because they find it hard to believe that women might commit serious violence. A similar tendency appeared to be involved in another incident headlined “Police “sorry’ for failing to answer attack call” , in which the main victim was a male while the violent attacker offender was a female. Although the victims told police that the female offender was in the process of attacking them, police didn’t see a violent female as dangerous enough to need their attention.
Finally, I don’t think journalists apply sexism on purpose to denigrate men, or even that they are aware they are doing it. I suspect it simply reflects longstanding stereotypes about men, disregard for men’s suffering compared women’s suffering, and their accurate beliefs about the newsworthiness of female victims compared with male victims. But journalists do apply sexist double standards frequently, of that there is no doubt.
Hans,
Thanks again for superb reportage.
I think that in the competition between nations the countries which hamper the male half of their population with misandry are always going to loose out eventually to more balanced, and hence more peaceable and productive nations.
NZ like other western nations is therefore a loser.
When I was a young lad we had a saying “don’t shit in your own nest”.
That’s precisely what western feminists and their mangina allies are doing at present.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 11:41 am
New Zealand (unfortunately) is the 5th most violent nation in the developed world (OECD statistics). And like most countries with a high violence rate the majority of it is not reported in the newspapers, simply because there is so much violence here that they cannot report it all. The newspapers have massive amounts of material to work with and can pick and choose what will sell the most papers (and therefore make them the most money).
.
What does make it to the newspapers is violence that makes for highly readable material, after all, the media industry is simply printing what the majority of people want to read.
.
Murders for example are now so common that most of them are not reported in newspapers, so the number of (mostly men) killed by fellow citizens goes completely under the radar. There is little doubt though of the bias in what is printed, but this is universal in the Western world.
.
Of course, bias in the media, defeats its entire purpose, and control of the media by the government is a serious issue in any country. If controls and bias do show their ugly face, then the media becomes nothing more than a propaganda machine (Hitler knew this very well, as did all of the fascist leaders and regimes).
.
So the question must be asked if bias is clear: “is the media being manipulated, or are they just printing what people want to read?” I suspect its simply the later, because the majority of New Zealanders seem quite happy to see men routinely “kicked in the face,” of course its easy to forget that there may be a good reason for this: the majority of New Zealanders are female.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 4:28 pm
Mr Anonymous
I would be physically sick to see anybody get kicked in the face.Kicked anywhere for that matter.Most violence that I have seen and heard about is related to excessive alcohol consumption.A lot of it in my town is women fighting.
Comment by Tanya — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 4:58 pm
Tanya, you claim:
This of course is metaphorical (but does happen literally). Women in New Zealand are quite content to see the average man kicked, beaten, whipped, and treated like crap. This is shown very clearly by the number who either support the system that does this, or take no action against it, even when they are made aware of the situation (what in legal terms is known as guilt by omission).
.
The lack of women actively involved in fighting for men’s rights speaks for itself about the concern that women really have for men in New Zealand.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Sun 11th September 2011 @ 6:16 pm
@Mr A and Tanya – How much of the violence do you think are the consequences of children growing up in fatherless homes?
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 12:25 am
Tanya, you claim:
So you don’t watch any TV or go to the movies / download movies then?
Comment by Skeptic — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 1:07 am
I dont go to movies to watch violence deliberately.I dont watch any violence if there is some I cover my head.I try to to go to those types of movies.I dont watch Violence on TV.I hardly watch TV.
Comment by Tanya — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 6:30 am
I am with Tanya. I try hard to avoid watching violence on TV. I hate it when people say “It’s only a film”.
I also feel physically sick when I see images of someone getting hurt etc.
I am a big strong bloke, who rides a fast motorbike (carefully) bikes seriously, and is prepared to stand up to bullies. I think that watching film /TV violence is just wish fulfillment for weak people.
The allusion to men ‘getting kicked in the face’ is apt and descriptive- happened to me- my world is divided into those who understand this happens, and those who have yet to experience or accept it.
Comment by John Brett — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 9:08 am
I agree re violence on TV and movies. I don’t watch them at all. I can’t believe that on TV we have shows glorifying serial killers and gangs. John, you didn’t need to explain how much of a man you are. Only feminazis (who should be ignored) would question your manliness over such a statement.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 10:02 am
I have been noticing this media bias also. My local paper wrote a front page article about a armed hold up at a night and day store and started with a WOMAN who was a witness to the incident by turning up just after the offenders but quoted her as saying she did not feel in danger but was not prepared to intervene. The next few paragraphs went on about the attack and it was not until she was quoted again that it mentioned that a man had been knocked unconscious during the attack. It appears that the not unsafe presence of a woman being there was bigger news than a man being knocked unconscious. I do not condone any violence but when it happens it has to be reported fairly.
Comment by Phil267 — Mon 12th September 2011 @ 9:42 pm
…and another example of “woman victim / man perp” has just been delivered courtesy of TV 3’s rachel smalley. CCTV coverage of the England Rugby team having a night out in a bar clearly shows some blonde swooning all over Englands’s Mike Tindall; going as far as giving him a kiss. Our intrepid TV 3 reporter decides to “object”, via twitter, to ex England captain Will Carling. She makes the comment (about the England team) that “They’re drunk, groping women and slamming shots – in public. They’re ambassadors for the game at the very highest level.”
So, here we have a blonde, kissing Tindall and falling all over him; and smalley has the audacity to allude to “women being groped.” So how’s that for “credibility” of a journalist; especially one that fronts the nation on a regular basis, supposedly to deliver the news as it happens?
Story here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10752576
Comment by Bruce S — Sun 18th September 2011 @ 7:33 pm
Simple.
Just boycott NZ Herald.
It regularly pumps out misandric nonsense so isn’t intelligent reading material anyway.
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 18th September 2011 @ 10:27 pm
There was an article in a New Zealand newspaper a couple of years ago “lamenting” on the man shortage. A lot of men are going overseas to find work and hopefully non western women. The NZ women are annoyed that they can’t find a sucker to support them after they get divorced etc. If these women claim to be strong and independant, they don’t need a man. I don’t blame men from the UK or NZ leaving and not having nothing to do with local women.
Comment by Norm — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 4:18 am
Norm
Do you think a mail order bride is the way to go for NZ men?
Comment by Tanya — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 6:48 pm
Hi Tanya, I can’t speak for Norm however from my perspective New Zealand men do not need brides, mail order or otherwise. The business and contract of marriage for New Zealand males is just too hostile. This is not a reflection on women; rather on the state machinery that is geared to gouge every ounce of happiness, capital and life fulfillment from him the minute a marriage goes “pear shaped”. There are precisely zero positive reasons for a New Zealand male to want to be married in this country anymore.
Comment by Bruce S — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 7:42 pm
I have to agree with you Bruce.
.
The modern man in order to keep himself safe from the negative effects of relationships needs to follow the following 3 simple rules:
.
1. Never under any circumstances live with a woman. After 2 years she has legal rights to half your property. Have her over to stay a few nights a week, just don’t let her move in.
.
2. Never under any circumstances marry, see rule 1.
.
3. Never have children, and take responsibility for making sure this dosn’t happen yourself, do not trust somehting as important as contracteption to a woman, remember a pregnancy means she will be receiving income from you irrespective of relationship status for 19 years. Get a vasectomy.
.
.
As long as you follow these rules in your dating you can have a very satisfying and safe love life, but it’s important to understand that in the modern world women come and go, so it’s necessary to take steps to make sure that when they do drift out of your life, you don’t get taken to the cleaners in the process. Never again will you fear a break up because of what you can loose and showing a woman the door if she becomes too much trouble will never be an issue again. Remember also that the more successful you become, the more important it is to follow these three simple rules.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 8:42 pm
Mr Anonymous
So women dont get taken to the cleaners when relationships go pear shaped.You assume that it is always the man who has the house,the well paid job and so on.
I agree that marriage can be a huge risk to take and having children more so.But I believe it is to both men and women.
Comment by Tanya — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 8:56 pm
Mr Anonymous (#16). Unfortunately, following Rule #1 will not guarantee that a partner doesn’t get a substantial share of your property. Amounts less than 50% of ‘relationship property’ are awarded for living together less than 2 years, well, to women anyway. A relationship agreement can provide a degree of protection against that, but Courts seem very keen to find any way they can to ensure women seize men’s assets. Women will almost always protect their assets from male partners through pre-nup type agreements, but if they don’t the system will usually find a way to minimize or prevent any asset transfer from women to men.
Incidently, check out this list of America’s richest people. Notice any difference between the male and female billionaires?
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 9:09 pm
Tanya,
I chime in wholeheartedly in agreement with Bruce S and Mr Anonymous.
A minor blues chord which rings loud and true but with much sadness.
The thought of marrying under NZ law and within it’s zeitgeist, indeed in any Anglosphere nation sets my teeth on edge and fills me with dread.
Some years ago I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of modern women are hypergamous by nature – always looking for the next best deal.
Once that realization set in it soon got tiresome trying to live up to their tedious and relentless expectations.
That tiredness was exacerbated by seeing how totally uninterested and unsupportive, indeed often openly hostile against Men’s long overdue getting human rights,they are.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve spoken up for males getting a fair shake in education, health funding, reproductive and relational rights, to name just some areas – and been met with the standard : that’s anti-women nonsense, as though advocating for men’s rights automatically means one is anti-women!
The daily grind of being in a relationship with a woman in NZ has become a total turn off. Having to constantly perform knowing one is constantly under surveillance and assessed with the possibility of not meeting the barely hidden criteria as success object is inhuman and counter relationship.
As Mr Anonymous alludes to the very real repercussions of not meeting the constant tests means to me that for men marriage in this day and age in NZ is just not worth the risk.
Some guys will argue against that I know.
Good luck to them is all I can say!
Screeds have been written on this site and others by men who have been reduced to poverty and alienation as a result of being kicked to the curb.
I’ve seen it many times myself in NZ too.
It’s with considered chuckles then, that I’ve often found myself in NZ bookstores seeing a swathe of books which ironically site men as being the ones who are commitment-phobic.
I’ve noticed those books were swallowed up eagerly by a great many women to the point of becoming best sellers, whilst the misandric drumbeat of popular female literature, greetings cards and other paraphernalia which portrayed men in demonizing terms with demeaning headlines such as “Are men really necessary?” and titles such as “Why won’t men commit?” rolled on.
Ah, such irony!
Such widely popular cultural artifacts seemingly speak of these tactics literally writ large.
Within this kind of social and political atmosphere I’ve seen too many good male mates and colleagues shafted to naively think that marriage in NZ is safe for men these days.
you could say I’ve swallowed the red pill.
Indeed I take it daily.
I have a small group of younger male friends who all await with relish the arrival of this new technology so that they won’t have to risk reproductive and financial hostage – unilateral divorce initiated by women followed by many years of paying ‘child support’, through marrying and having kids.
I reckon any woman seriously considering getting together with a man for a long term relationship would be wisest to be thinking seriously about how to undo the current terrible anti-male state of affairs pronto to make marriage again tenable for men. Mind you, not just coo in passive agreement either, but hit the road with political action.
Otherwise just resign herself to the fact that due to the internet men increasingly and rapidly are cottoning onto the sexual relations game and how horribly rigged against them it is.
The genie is well and truly out of the bottle!
Further irony then will be that the populist myth of men being commitment phobic is rapidly becoming true – but for reasons the gynocentric often feminist authors have no inkling of!
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 9:49 pm
Han’s, if you actually bothered to read rule one you would have noticed that it says:
“Never under any circumstances live with a woman.”
There is then the reason why (the two year thing) and the course of action, to: “Have her over to stay a few nights a week.” but to not let her move in.
.
As for your list of America’s richest people – so what, we live in New Zealand.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 11:29 pm
Tanya..
.
Well actually…..
.
Men earn more, spend less and in general have more in the way of possessions of value. So yes, generally it is the man who gets taken to the cleaners, and the courts of course work in favour of women.
.
Open your eyes and look around at the retail outlets and you will quickly see how much retail space is dedicated to women compared to that of men.
.
The bottom line though Tanya is that it is no longer fiscally sensible for a man to marry or have children. It is the worse decision he can make. He basically has three choices:
1. Exit relationships entirely (MGTOW).
.
2. Conduct his relationships within guidelines that make them safe.
.
3. Conduct his relationships in the traditional manner and risk financial devastation in the family courts (where he stands to loose a very good portion of everything he owns and have his income fleeced for up to 19 years in child tax). He could try to minimise the chance of a woman doing this by seeking character traits in a woman that are conducive to a better relationship, but the reality is that any woman could still do this to him, at any time, on a whim, because the laws allow it. Personally I couldn’t think of any situation more unsettling than to live with the knowledge that there is a person capable of such destruction in my life.
.
These are the realities of relationships for a man in a Western country. To me option 3 is clearly the worst possible situation a man can put himself in and number 2 is the best choice.
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 11:49 pm
@Tanya re post # 17 – No, Women almost never get taken to the cleaners. Currently, a huge legal, political and social machine allows women to take advantage of men. That such a machine allowing men to take advantage of women has existed is a myth. Even if you disagree with that last sentence and believe that there was such a machine (frequently referred to as the Patriarchy), men did not use theirs to nearly the destructive affect that women use theirs today. Evidence that men do not have the same predisposition for taking advantage of their spouses is easily documented by difference in various phenomena for forty years before and forty years after 1970. These data are from the US. Prior to 1970, approximately 67% of adults were married. After 1970, only about 37%. Prior to 1970, approximately 7% of marriages ended in divorce. After 1970, about 60%. Prior to 1970, initiation of divorce was split evenly among men, women and mutual. After 1970, 80% of divorces are initiated by women and the remainder is split evenly between men and mutual (with most mutual being initiated by the woman but the man going along with it because he knows he has no choice). Prior to 1970, paternity fraud or unknown paternity was almost unheard of. In the past three years, 25% of all children born in the US are victims of paternity fraud or unknown paternity. Since 1970, one-million restraining orders have been filed, almost all women against men, usually a wife against her husband during divorce (that’s 40-million restraining orders). Prior to 1970, most people wouldn’t know what a restraining order was. After 1970, more than 50% of all children in the US are in custody of their mothers. Before 1970, parenting of almost all children was shared. The list, of course, goes on and on. After 1970, child support awards to women typically exceed actual cost or raising a child by a multiple of four. Before 1970, if men initiated divorce and got custody, the mother was not ordered to pay child support. But, the answer to your question is “no”, women do not get taken to the cleaners. There are so many opportunities for different lifestyles available to women that are not available to men. Women can work, marry/divorce, collect welfare. Men can work, work, work.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 22nd September 2011 @ 11:57 pm
@Allan – Sorry to upset you. I was just pointing out the difference between advocacy research and legitimate scientific research, about which there is a considerable volume concerning the consequences of feminism.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 23rd September 2011 @ 12:00 am
DarrylX
So women dont go to work?So women don’t accumulate assets?
In my little part of the world many women earn more than men.It is not too uncommon for a man to be a stay at home child caring parent.In my world our main street has most businesses owned by women.Most women I know work really hard as I do.Many women I know have lost out big time through separation.
For the record I believe the law in NZ as regards to 2 years in a relationship and the possible consequences is retarded.It retards people taking any risk.All relationships have risk for both parties.It is unfair in the extreme for whoever has the most assets man or women.Relationships are investments ….not only financial ones though.People invest time and energy and forego other (even potential) opportunities to enter a relationship.To believe otherwise is plainly naive.If children are involved it does change the situation somewhat.In the end either parent may end up with the children even if not immediately on separation.In Australia I believe the custodial parent get a more than 50 % settlement at separation.The children could end up choosing to live with the previously non custodial parent.I am sure this happens often.What a mess.
Comment by Tanya — Fri 23rd September 2011 @ 7:20 am
Mr Anonymous (#20): Ouch. Sorry, I didn’t read your previous comment carefully enough, you did write “never under any circumstances live with a woman”. However you also mentioned the 2-years criterion for getting half a partner’s property, and I thought it important to point out that it does not need 2 years for a partner to seize a significant proportion of your property. I would add that in the case of a woman staying over a few nights per week she would have a good chance of getting the Court to award her some proportion of your relationship property on the finding that her staying over constituted contribution to the relationship. To some extent, the system seems to reflect the prostitute’s attitude, that if a woman participates sexually this deserves financial compensation.
I linked the list of America’s richest people to draw attention to the source of the riches according to the gender of those people. It was not ‘my’ list but simply a news item. The same dynamics are likely to apply in New Zealand.
I regret that you felt so defensive about my comments that you saw fit to use such a sarcastic and dismissive attitude in your reply. I would have thought we were more or less on the same side.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 23rd September 2011 @ 8:56 am
Tanya,
have you come here to support ANY NZ men’s issues at all?
Or are you intent instead on trolling these threads to argue from your female perspective?
Remember the whole site is supposed to be as it’s banner states – –
I cannot see how your postings to date are doing that as you appear more intent on speaking from an argumentative and gynocentric point of view rather than listening to what men are saying here.
For the record I disagree with some of your views expressed in #24. You appear to overlook the point that it is overwhelmingly men rather than women who lose out terribly upon divorce / separation in NZ.
I also doubt most of the businesses in your High Street are as you state actually owned by women.
Run by them perhaps. Owned? I doubt it. Leased? Possibly.
I agree with what you’ve had to say here :
the only proviso I’d add to that is it’s most often the man rather than the woman with the greater assets to risk loosing – after all he’s the one most likely to lose his home, children and a big chunk of his future income for up to 19 years. Oh, and don’t forget he’s not allowed by law to even know if the kid/s he’s paying for as his by having a legally recognized DNA paternity test done.
Oh! You poor women. You have it so hard!
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 23rd September 2011 @ 3:13 pm
Skeptic
I am on this site to try to understand men.Like I have said I have 2 sons.
And no most businesses on our main street are owned by women.They may not own all the buildings but do own the businesses.Sorry to dissappoint you.Women are doing it for themselves Skeptic.Women do lose out often in separation.I did and I know many others.Sorry to disappoint you again.Some men are lazy and don’t accumulate wealth just like some women are lazy.I am trying to understand men. It would be sad for people visiting this site to come to believe that mens issues are all about denigrating women.Maybe try to stop denigrating women endlessly and maybe they will listen?Its hard to take people seriously when people lump everyone from one race together and like wise for the way some of the men on this site lump all women together.
Comment by Tanya — Fri 23rd September 2011 @ 4:55 pm
Tanya,
I don’t buy the “I’ve got two sons so I’m here to learn about men” line for a moment. I see far too much argumentative prevarication from you to believe that. It appears you are here to needle men, not learn from them as you claim.
If you genuinely wanted to learn about MALE experience you’d be asking men their views instead of playing critical aunty.
A case in point is the ridiculously overwrought exhortation to “Maybe try to stop denigrating women endlessly”. You could just as easily have asked “Skeptic, why do you have such views of women” but instead reflexively going into bat for team woman.
If you had more critical reading skills you’d see too that I use such phrases as “the vast majority of women appear”, not “ALL women” as you imply with the false allegation of lumping all women together.
Hey welcome to the club Tanya.
You’re just another in the long line of folks (mostly but not exclusively women – there I go again being clear in qualifying!)who jump to defend team woman with paranoid claims that criticism of women = hatred of women.
What’s with having such thin skin?
This overwhelming hyperneediness for security – to be seen in the best possible light at all times or falsely claim the criticizer is mysogynistic.
I’m starting to see what Darryl X might be going on about when he refers to many women as narccicistic and pathalogical!
And relating this to the topic of the thread I see your input here as being like a microcosmic version of what is writ large in NZ media culture where :
Woman barges into men’s space claiming equal rights to be there, then starts throwing around indulgent demands/criticisms of men that they should remodel themselves to fit their female criteria.
Then when called on her behavior she flips into victim mode and throws out ridiculous squeals of “Misogyny, misogyny! you’re denigrating women!” As though women are Sooooooooooooo beyond being criticized.
Talking about wanting to be placed on a pedestal!
Comment by SKeptik — Fri 23rd September 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Thanks for your last post, Tanya –
I’m not picking on you specifically or singling you out. I’m describing quantitatively the circumstances of men and women. The differences in those circumstances are dramatic. If you are a woman and the facts reflect poorly upon you as a woman then I’m not responsible. I’m just the messenger – don’t shoot the messenger. If you’ve managed to rise above that, then as they say in NZ, good on you. you’re marriage material. Too bad I’m in the US.
In anwer to your questions, “So women dont go to work? So women don’t accumulate assets?” The answer is “NO”. Women don’t go to work. In the US and in all other developed countries, most income earned or assets acquired by women are through marriage/divorce, alimony, child support, public assistance (welfare including food stamps and housing vouchers in the US), affirmative action, usury, and unemployment. Few assets are are accumulated by working and that work is very different qualitatively and quantitatively than work by men. Assets of women are accumulated but they are not the product of hard work and contribution to and investment in their communities but are a form of parasitism and pathological dependency achieved by the manipulation of others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. With all things being equal throughout the past forty years, approximately 95% of women (in the US) are ill prepared for retirement, except for and/or despite the vast amount of wealth they accumulated through the dishonest and shiftless means described above. Most men used to be prepared for retirement except now many are not because all their assets have been stolen through divorce and other mechanisms of dishonest and illegal and unconstitutional wealth transfer itemized above.
“In my little part of the world many women earn more than men.” That does not surprise me. In the US, the average women has a greater income than the average man (in complete contradiction to gov’t statistics – even the gov’t is finding it hard to make the claim that men have greater incomes than women as the gap between the two grows and income of women continues to rise relative to men). Add on child support and alimony, which aren’t even considered in income comparisons, and the average woman has an income much greater than the average man. Reports from the US gov’t recently that one in five people are living below the threshold for poverty is inaccurate. Most of those living in poverty but who are not included in the existing data, are men because they are homeless and off the records. It’s much more for many other reasons too, the least of which the threshold is based upon cost of living in 1965. But even worse than that, number of men living in poverty was underrepresented by about ten-million and number of women living in poverty was overrepresented by about ten-million because only gross incomes were used to determine poverty. Not gross incomes plus or minus child support and alimony or forms of public assistance, for which men are ineligible. Yes, the difference is that dramatic. Claims by the gov’t that most of those living in poverty are women and children is incorrect, as most actually are men but different standards are applied to men than women and children.
“It is not too uncommon for a man to be a stay at home child caring parent.” No, it may not be too uncommon, but it is very uncommon. In the US, as I’m sure it is in NZ, more than 50% of marriages end in divorce and mothers get custody in approximately 90% of divorces. I’m sure many of those divorces in which mothers were awarded custody involved men who stayed at home and cared for the children. In any event, not many stay at home dads. And to the extent there are, it’s that way because of the mechanism I described in an earlier post about a friend of mine who is the administrator of a hospital and had a brother-in-law who refused to work. That scenario I described is the most common for stay at home dads.
“In my world our main street has most businesses owned by women.” Of course they own most businesses. They bought them with the money they stole from their ex-husbands or acquired from misapplication of public assistance. it’s that way here in the US too. Most women who own businesses in the US would be bankrupt if not for considerable public assistance, mostly supplied by men, as most women are exempt in one way or another from contributing.
“Most women I know work really hard as I do. Many women I know have lost out big time through separation.” Statisitically, the number of women who have “lost out big time” or at all through separation is negligible and is unchanged from the past fifty years, hundred years and thousand years. Today, more than 50% of marriages end in divorce throughout the developed world and custody goes to the woman in approximately 90%, so I’d say the instances in which women have “lost out big time” are extremely small. Certainly in 50% of all divorces, children never see their fathers again and in most of the remaining, the children only see their fathers a few days a month. I’d say the ones who lose out big time in divorce the most and in most instances are the children and fathers.
“For the record I believe the law in NZ as regards to 2 years in a relationship and the possible consequences is retarded. It retards people taking any risk. All relationships have risk for both parties. It is unfair in the extreme for whoever has the most assets man or women. Relationships are investments “¦.not only financial ones though. People invest time and energy and forego other (even potential) opportunities to enter a relationship. To believe otherwise is plainly naive.” I agree sort of. Men take the biggest risks, though, and that is well documented.
“If children are involved it does change the situation somewhat. In the end either parent may end up with the children even if not immediately on separation. In Australia I believe the custodial parent get a more than 50 % settlement at separation. The children could end up choosing to live with the previously non custodial parent. I am sure this happens often. What a mess.” Again, I agree that when children are involved, the situation does change. However, the best alternative almost always ignored is shared parenting. Shared parenting almost always works unless the mother imposes her hostile parent veto, which is almost always. Historically, fathers have not imposed a hostile parent veto and the data supporting this claim are considerable. If mothers stop using their hostile parent veto, the problem of separation and child support and fatherless children goes away. The mothers have choices. Few make the right ones for their children but instead choose to traffic and abuse their children and enslave the fathers for profit. It is an expression of malignant narcissism and psychopathy and it is institutionalized in law, politics and society throughout the developed world.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 1:28 am
@Skeptik – “I’m starting to see what Darryl X might be going on about when he refers to many women as narccicistic and pathalogical!” You’re STARTING to see? – LOL I figured you were there long before me. Never underestimate a woman’s disposition for portraying herself as a victim of any circumstance despite all facts to the contrary and never underestimate the disposition for a small population of men to enable her victimhood. Remember the quote by Hilary Clinton that I paraphrase because I don’t have the exact quote (maybe you have it because I think you or someone else has presented it on this site before), “No one has been hurt more by the deaths of all these men in this war than the women and children.” Except all the men who died. But we’re not counting them. We never do. LOL
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 1:44 am
@Hans – Yup. Very interesting and revealing list. Sorry if my previous post to you was a bit defensive. I always appreciate your contributions and challenge.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 1:46 am
Skeptic.
In regards to the Male Birth Control Pill. I stand by the article I wrote:
An upcoming disaster for men. The male birth control pill.
This pill, when it finally becomes available will simply give women one more “the pill must have failed” excuse when they get pregnant. They currently use the “the condom must have ripped” excuse with wild abandon, what makes guys think anything will change?
.
It is important to remember that New Zealand women are documented as the most promiscuous in the developed world, therefore if they get pregnant it is not necessarily to their current “partner” it may be to any guy. However, when it comes to picking the one she names as the father, doesn’t it make sense she will probably pick the most responsible guy she can find? The one most likely to have money and to be on the pill?
.
It is only when we see changes in the availability of paternity testing that we will see any real progress, the male birth control pill in itself will make no difference. However, widespread “pill failure” in time will hopefully lead to guys demanding paternity testing, but this could take decades until we see enough of a ground swell to create a law change.
.
The best option for a man in todays society is to get his sperm frozen and put in storage and then get a vasectomy. It will cost $200 a year to have his sperm frozen and stored, much cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy and he has documented proof of his inability to father a child without deliberate medical intervention.
Comment by Phoenix — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 11:11 am
Tanya,
I disagree as I think you’ve missed a vital point about the new upcoming non hormonal male birth control pill. Unlike the condom it DOESN’T fail. Therefore all a guy has to do is prove (very easily done) that he took the pill and he can’t be on the hook named as the father of the child.
The pill can be taken as infrequently as every month or even every three months.
it will be a game breaker for men.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 3:34 pm
BTW since this thread is about feminist bias in the mainstream media have you folks noticed how there’s a wall to wall silence from the main stream media about the social implications of the upcoming non hormonal birth control pill?
A sure sign the feminists are panicked about it’s imminent arrival.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 3:37 pm
Skeptik, what makes you think that there will be any implications when the Male Birth Control Pill is released? If there are implications, they will take at least ten years to be seen, possibly many more. A silence from the media doesn’t mean feminists are concerned at all.
Comment by Phoenix — Sat 24th September 2011 @ 11:56 pm
That’s getting off the topic of this thread – feminist bias in the nz media.
If you’d like an answer and to discuss it further please start a new thread.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 25th September 2011 @ 12:39 am
Here’s a Radio show for Tanya,
and anyone else interested in the topic of
What Every Man Should Know Before He Gets Married
Comment by SKeptik — Tue 27th September 2011 @ 4:29 pm
@Tanya…
My business – tax agent – operates in a busy retail precinct in a big regional city. Of the retailers and services throughout that area who serve one sex some nine out of ten are for women only. Very few of those would be running at a profit. Many of them seem to be very idle all the time. Somebody is paying the bills and it certainly isn’t the business operations themselves doing so.
Something makes divorce appealing enough to women for them to be the significant majority of the initiators. What do you think this something might be?
Men generally don’t judge women on their willingness or ability to accumulate wealth.
Then my advice is that you listen to them rather than judge them.
Do you know why most female run businesses trade only with women whilst men sell stuff successfully to everyone? The true answer is that women generally have no idea what men want or what really interests them. I credit you for being honest about your engaging in a spot of market research. Unfortunately I fear you are not very good at it.
What’s sad is that they need to find obscure little places like MENZ to view ANY uncensored criticism of women. Meanwhile, and in large part because of feminism, it has become de rigeur for anybody who can to cast derision and shame upon the mass of men and boys. From the pinnicles of political leadership to our kindergarten classrooms no male, man or boy, is free of this death of a thousand cuts. To them negative gender stereotyping has become such the norm and the drumbeat of pretended “equality” so repetitive that they no longer recognise real hatred even when it cuts their genitals off.
However tides turn and pendulums swing. Women more broadly have yet to experience the full depths of equality nor the rigours of obligation that certainly await them. If they cannot cope with a few words of criticism in an isolated corner then I’m afraid tough times are coming for many of them.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 2:45 am
gwallen
I am listening.But a lot of what I am hearing is men running women down.Is this the only way that some men on this site can try to elevate themselves.Generalizing about any group of people is not a bright way to try to be taken seriously.
If women are so useless in business why are there so many stupid mean subsidizing them as you suggest?Do you have some hard evidence that this is the case generally?It is news to me.Need some facts now please.
Comment by Tanya — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 3:14 am
@Tanya – This site does not present a lot of accounts in which men are running women down (if any). There are many accounts of how women are running men down and those accounts for the most part are presented with facts and data to support them.
Again, if you don’t like the facts which portray women as manipulating others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood, don’t shoot the messenger. The goal here is not to run women down, it is to define and describe and understand the problem so that a practical solution may be identified.
The problem is women and their behavior and its institutionalism in gov’t, law and society. Plenty of evidence has been presented to support that conclusion. Now the problem is what do you do about the women and their behavior. Do you have any suggestions?
You have presented no facts or data which implicate men in all this mess. Just isolated and incidental and anecdotal accounts which represent only a very tiny part of the population. The problem isn’t that the feelings of one or two percent of women are hurt but that more than fifty percent of the population of men are financially ruined or are dead from suicide or war or imprisoned or exiled and the economy is collapsing and the entire fabric of civilization is unravelling.
That’s what happens when feminists or anyone have absolute control and power. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, you’re misreprenting facts and data that reflect poorly on women and that are independent of those presenting them as “men running women down” (on this site it just happens to be a lot of men presenting those facts and data but there are many sources that are women too).
I and others have already directed you to many sources where women and men in equal numbers present the same information. Concerning your observation about men subsidizing the businesses of women, the men don’t have a choice – they are coerced into doing it and at least in the US that coercion is under threat of imprisonment.
You’ve been given plenty of facts. Just read all the other posts on this and other threads on which you’ve participated. You have plenty of good information. You just obviously are unable to assimilate and process it. I’m done wasting my time with you. There is no excuse for the questions and claims in your last post. They are ridiculous and by now you should be ashamed of yourself. But you just don’t have the sense to be.
Comment by Darryl X — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 4:24 am
@Tanya…
No you are not listening. You’ve been trained – as have we all over the past half century – to see misogyny by default and are incapable of seeing anything beyond that. It blinds you to all else. You hear without understanding. You become an enforcer in the imprisonment they are fighting by demanding their message be delivered to you only in terms to your liking else they remain isolated. By doing so you define the emotions they are permitted to experience and express. That is not your right nor is it smart if you truly wish to learn. By imposing your will on the subject you distort what it is you are trying to understand.
I made no such judgements of the women or men involved. I merely observe and report on the environment in which I spend the most active third of my life. You could easily explore it for yourself. Simply spend a day in a busy retail district. Don’t participate – assuming you can resist the urge – but observe. You may find it quite enlightening.
Regarding “listening” – did you note my reference to “tax agent”? It obviously never occurred to you to wonder where my clients might come from. Probably too busy trying to lever hatred and nastiness into my psychology to notice. More than a few of my clients are local businesses. Among them are numerous examples of husbands financing businesses for their wives and which never profit. Far from being “stupid mean”(sic) they are often happy for their wives to do things they love – even at a loss. My sister spends a bit too much on her drag racer. Her husband pays those bills. What a stupid mean he must be.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 5:25 am
Tanya,
Gwallan and Daryll X take you to task rightly IMO.
I imagine I’m one of those you accuse of being involved in
“a lot of what I am hearing is men running women down”.
Let me reframe that viewpoint for you in a way that’s not colored by your filtered and thus ineffective listening –
I am deeply saddened and troubled as the vast majority of NZ women I’ve come across at work, in relationships, in public and through the media in the last few decades appear blind to the fact of their own forms of self centered and unwarranted victim feminism.
I fear they appear so mired in this state that they are terribly devoid of compassion for men’s issues which are many, deeply rooted and won’t be addressed until societal attitudes towards males change. On the contrary I experience far too many women self indulgently brandishing their ‘victimhood’ as a weapon to garner even more privileges whilst men languish according to virtually every index of distress I’ve seen over several decades of research and personal observation.
All to often a great many apparently blindly see men as mere tools to be exploited for their useful ideas, their life’s energy and the many life enhancing products of such.
The vast majority of those that I’ve challenged about this, appear to react rather than assimilate the new information. As such they appear indifferent or worse still even hostile.
They display a range of behaviors indicating this – open denial and invalidation, demonizing with insults, minimizing, changing the topic – often to their own ‘victimhood’, passive aggressive silence with accompanied ‘I couldn’t care less’ facial expression and body language.
If you are curious about any of this I could write screeds to give countless examples of experiences with women in New Zealand I’ve had to illustrate what I’m saying as it’s been my business literally to be aware of such as a social worker for many years.
I’m confident this in turn would act as a beacon and generate responses from other men on this site writing of all too familiar similar experiences they’ve had with women in New Zealand and other parts of the Anglosphere.
Now Tanya,
please bear in mind that this site is supposed to be for –
Keep that front and center in your mind and please get this –
I’m posting this – my experience as a man over several decades in New Zealand. Other men reading can then reflect upon what I’ve written and their own experience of women in New Zealand. If what I’ve written resonates with their experience then there will be a connection and some consciousness raising will have occurred.
I don’t write it to provide you with an excuse to fall into ‘victim feminist’ mode decrying men’s lived experience and automatically go in to bat for team woman in order to sabotage such consciousness raising.
However, if you choose to go that route I can see already from this thread and others it’s going to be a tough road for you. I can see that you are going to be team tackled every time by guys who’ve had a gutsful of women trying to tell them what their experience is or should be.
That process would prove tiresome to me, only it serves a great purpose – it illustrates on a microcosmic level the victim feminist zeitgiest in New Zealand and how it’s attitudinally maintained.
As strange as it may at first seem then, I think your profound ignorance of men’s issues manifest in ignoring many of the issues set before you, filtered ‘listening’, belittling attitude argumentativeness and frquent lack of compassionate responses is useful to us.
But I fear it’s of little use to you personally.
I can’t see you growing to understand men and their issues more with such an approach.
Sadly I see your sons will suffer as a result.
Evidence so far is that you aren’t ready for us MRA, but rather are here to troll and fight men – what might be called still at the pre-conscious stage.
Keep coming back though.
Your nascent struggle to come to terms with intractable Men’s Rights Advocacy can help others in a similar process.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 12:57 pm
So its mens turn to be ‘Victims’?
Comment by Tanya — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 3:45 pm
Tanya,
if you knew enough history you’d understand it’s not a matter of taking turns at being victims. And if you could show a shred of compassion you wouldn’t refer to men as victims using inverted commas either.
It’s abundantly clear now you aren’t here to learn about the dreadful misandry prevalent in NZ and Anglophile culture, simply to needle and berate with knee jerk feminist reactions.
I invite you to take a look at this page. It may help you and others of your ilk reading MENZ a great deal to get clearer about where I and other MRA are coming from.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 8:47 pm
One other thing Tanya.
The idea that it’s it being men’s turn to be ‘victims’ is not only obnoxious but the idea strikes me as plain daft because as feminism harms men and boys primarily, ultimately
institutionalizing female privilege results in harming everyone – women included.
To their credit wiser women than you have already figured this out long ago.
You only have to ask and I’m sure several readers will gladly direct you to those women and their writings. It may be easier for you to hear our experience when the message is coming from other women.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 28th September 2011 @ 8:54 pm
Hans, you focussed on news media. Entertainment media probably has as much impact onto how we all think, our values and our decision points.
Craig Jackson has been urging many of us to complain about advertisements where men were denigrated or taken the piss out of.
Certainly, I agreed with him, about examples where untruthful representations about statistics or facts were presented as serious truth, for example the DV campaigns and women’s refuge appeals.
Craig’s approach seemed to me a bit humourless.
However, entertainment media also has a significant impact onto the public’s understanding of sexist issues. Although some programmes might portray issues quite unfairly, for entertainment value, usually this is more than compensated for by good quality portrayals in other programmes. Generally, the public will eventually sort the wheat from the chaff, the question is how long will this take?
Programmes range from Fiona’s Story and Forgiven, presented in TV1 Sunday Theatre covering (sexual abuse of children), to Coronation Street discussing underage sex and showing the issue from all faces and in short and long term consequences.
Forgiven and Fiona’s Story were really hard work to watch, I would find it difficult to describe them as entertainment. By contrast, the Coro Street portrayal’s appealed to the larger mass audience. These two examples were of quite a high educational quality and I suggest of high social positive value. The Business Herald warns that Coro Street is about to branch more graphically into normalising homosexual relationships and I am pleased to see this move.
By contrast, some crime dramas present certain ethical values as normal, that I personally see as quite socially dangerous. These issues are fairly insidious, as most people don’t stop to think through the impact these types of programmes might have on our young people….., least of all our young people most at risk.
Dexter and Justified appear to me to be of particular concern, with respect to dangerous ethical values.
I have a personal problem with enjoying programmes like Jeckyll and the Singing Detective. Thus far, help hasn’t enabled me to enjoy them less…….
The shear quantity of murder based entertainment worries me, especially that it is aimed directly at young viewers. Is this the only way to leaven our advertisements?
Is anyone interested to help me look through both individual programmes and also at the total mix, to see whether we should be taking any concerted action to improve the qualities of our TV programmes?
I want you to know that I am not a nun!
In general, I feel that the advertisements are of better quality than the programmes…
Similarly, all of the present military superpowers seem to have fluid ethical values, that melt to fit in with their present selfish interests. I believe that they would benefit by taking ethics seriously, as they pressure other parties to do. Have they been watching too many of their own TV programmes?
Cheers, MurrayBacon axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 2nd October 2011 @ 3:44 pm
Face meets egg?
Following on from my post (#11) regarding rachel smalley’s derision of Mike Tindall for groping a mystery blonde in a bar. The real story has been revealed. Seems the blonde seen swooning over and kissing Tindall was just an over zealous ex. Follow up story here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/around-the-cup/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503176&objectid=10756439
So there you are rachel; the facts kind of got in the way of your story. Merely a case of an ex who still has some affection for her (ex) male counterpart. I understand that the National Enquirer are looking for a junior editor in their “caption this” column. Perhaps you might be better suited to that role.
Comment by Bruce S — Wed 5th October 2011 @ 8:39 am
Comment of the day IMO from The Spearhead
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 5th October 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Bruce S (#47): Yes, well called. We knew already that the video recording showed no groping from Tindall at all, but he took the blonde’s hand at one point to lead her away from the bar and he later allowed her to pull his head towards her; he put his head down, perhaps to avoid face to face contact or kissing; she seemed to be the one coming on to him or trying to create opportunities for sexualized intimacy. Now that we know the blonde was previously in a relationship with Tindall we can make some guesses about the situation. Firstly, the blonde knew he was married because she had attended the wedding but she did not appear to be showing much respect for his marriage. Secondly, if he was happy to see her as a friend and as the two sharing some affectionate feelings in light of their past, then she was inviting him to go further. She was placing all responsibility on him to maintain boundaries and thereby risk hurting her feelings or losing the good vibes between them as friends that evening. We have no evidence that he failed in meeting that responsibility.
This situation brings to mind the attitude underlying the ‘Slutwalk’ protests: feminists claiming that women have no responsibility for the impact of their dress and behaviour on men. Don’t get me wrong, I do not see a woman as responsible for a man’s behavioural response and certainly not for illegal behaviour such as violence or rape against her. But I hold women responsible for deliberately dressing and behaving in ways likely to arouse sexual desire in men and that might easily be interpreted as inviting sexual interaction, and then for humiliating or otherwise punishing men who attempt to communicate their desire in appropriate ways. I see the Slutwalk attitude as being uncaring towards men who have to live with a biological inheritance of powerful sexual drive. The attitude says “I can dress and act in any sexually provocative way I want and men will just have to cope with their instinctual sexual responses, reading my mind to know that my true sexual availability contradicts what is suggested by my external dress and behaviour, and they will just have to maintain perfect composure at all times”.
If Tindall had caved in to sexual desires aroused by his blonde ex-girlfriend’s invitations, would Rachel Smalley hold her at all responsible? I doubt it.
(Men could equally argue that when a man raises his voice or shows angry behaviour, he is not responsible for a woman’s emotional reaction based on her biological inheritance of generally weaker muscles, greater self-protectiveness, desire for a settled family nest etc. Of course, feminists don’t apply the ‘Slutwalk’ attitude to that situation but instead hold the man totally responsible for the woman’s emotional and behavioural reaction and in fact label men’s expression of anger as unacceptable in any form because women might feel fearful. And in expressing anger, most men do accept some responsibility to consider women’s strong instinctual reactions.)
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 5th October 2011 @ 11:13 pm
Hans (#47)
Doesn’t this just mirror the way the family court and CYFS work in New Zealand? Even in the face of irrefutable evidence, the “jury” defers to womean(sic) right, man guilty.
Your points about sluts walking are so salient. Homo sapiens as a species have evolved, survived and thrived only because of the genetic and innate biological qualities of the male of the species.
Our predominantly western, feminist friends have (un)wittingly decided it’s time to play god and attempt to re-condition those essential “drivers” of human kind. Flaunting their sexuality as a trap for men is the one taboo too many; the one that will ultimately lead to destruction of society as we know it. Simply, the last remaining incentive for males to participate in a structured society will now have been removed.
Comment by Bruce S — Thu 6th October 2011 @ 7:23 pm
Well, well, well.
Looky here.
I took a peek at the banner on the page of He said – She said at Stuff NZ.com news site today.
It seems that Hans and I and whoever else wrote complaining that the banner had a picture of a woman with angel wings and a man with devil horns has had some positive impact.
Note that the authors of such misandric imagery have not had the social grace to offer an apology for such. Men apparently aren’t worth it – it’s a lifestyle (primarily women’s) area of the website after all.
I think the banner looks much better now – humane.
Let’s see how long it last though.
Interesting to read the other day in the same section of the Stuff NZ website the moaning coming from some women that there’s now not just a man shortage for women looking to form relationships with men in NZ – it’s now being called an educated man shortage due to increasing disparity of more women earning degrees compared to men. The comments there were laughably trite.
Very few folks have woken up to how university has become a place fraught with danger to many males. Many seem to push the line that a university degree isn’t the only sign of being educated and pointed to their marriage/relationships with tradesmen.
Their rationalization hamsters are spinning full throttle as they appear to miss the bigger picture – many professions require a degree.
That inevitably means many (cushy office) jobs will go to women instead of men (Outdoors higher risk exposure professions).
Then if what passes for current mainstream media influenced comment holds sway there’ll just be more women aged 18 – 45 bemoaning the educated man shortage as though it’s something men concocted and they should just ‘man up’.
Total bullshit of course.
Men are increasingly making sensible choices instead.
More on that later…..
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 25th October 2011 @ 9:49 pm
Sorry folks,
looks like Stuff NZ are back to their misandric ways –
take a look at the banner picture for this section “Aunt and Uncle Agony” of their website.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 29th October 2011 @ 1:57 pm
I need to ask Skeptic, “How is Aunt and Uncle agony being misandrist (hating men)?”
I almost wanted to say I don’t believe a young female wrote the letter to stuff, but after seeing young women looking for love in the wrong places, I believe it possible. Young NZ women need role models especially when their mothers die or they’ve been in state care. (IMO)
Comment by julie — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 9:26 am
julie..i can answer that..the man has red flames around him suggesting heat..hot as in furious angry and the chis has a halo..in my opinion
Comment by Ford — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 10:24 am
^chic
Comment by Ford — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 10:26 am
Thanks Ford. I see it now.
Comment by julie — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 11:29 am
would be a better portayal if the chic had a snakes head with a halo
Comment by Ford — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Julie,
She’s portrayed as angelic and he’s portrayed as devilish.
It doesn’t come any more blatant than that!
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 1:14 pm
Thanks Skeptic – so much for the web being modern.
I met a SAHD (stay-at-home-dad) who has separated and has 4 days during the week (equal parenting). The playgroup he attends had to change signs ect because they had focused on mothers only and he complained to the magazine ‘Treasures’ making them also change to adjust to dads and more.
Good on you for picking up on this and making others aware too.
Comment by julie — Sun 30th October 2011 @ 7:13 pm
julie..try my name in a youtube search
Comment by Ford — Mon 31st October 2011 @ 9:05 pm
Good onya the Don.
Comment by Skeptic — Sun 20th November 2011 @ 1:07 pm
“TV One brings you exclusive footage of the Maori that threaten your children…”
“TV One brings you exclusive footage of the Women that threaten your children…”
“TV One brings you exclusive footage of the Homosexuals that threaten your children…”
“TV One brings you exclusive footage of the Chinese that threaten your children…”
Of course not. You’ll never hear anything like the above, in any context. What’s been playing all afternoon was actually this:
“TV One brings you exclusive footage of the men that threaten your children…”
After a welcome break from the daily poison on free-to-air public television, Mark Sainsbury is right back with his usual swill.
Comment by rc — Mon 23rd January 2012 @ 5:30 pm
Women are the main abusers of infants! If the matter goes to court they will most likely receive a much lesser sentence than a male for a like crime. They are incarcerated in superior surroundings to men. Should I continue?
Comment by Gwaihir — Fri 27th January 2012 @ 9:06 am
#63..womens best defence..deny everything and blame everyone else
Comment by Ford — Fri 27th January 2012 @ 9:32 am
Preferably at the top of their voices, telling the male how he has damaged their feelings with statements (Lies of course)and actions.
Comment by Gwaihir — Fri 27th January 2012 @ 10:20 am
Yes Gwaihir, you could remind people about the sexist ‘Infanticide’ law that allows women only to be sentenced to a maximum of 3 years imprisonment for murdering a child when a man who did exactly the same thing would get a minimum of life with 10 years minimum before consideration for parole.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 3rd February 2012 @ 11:31 am
Then Hans I recollect the instance where the female was the principal offender, But the Man received a more severe sentence – Must dig that one out!
Comment by Gwaihir — Fri 3rd February 2012 @ 3:23 pm
#NotAllMen #YesAllWomen.
Not all men are violent, yes all women have to walk down the street in fear of men.
Comment by Brooke — Thu 4th September 2014 @ 9:16 am
#NotAllWomen #YesAllMen.
Not all women are violent, yes all men have to fear a women in the home.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 4th September 2014 @ 11:29 am
@ #68 Brooke,
#NotAllMen #NotAllWomenAreSnowflakes.
Not all men are violent, Not all women walk down the street in fear of men.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 4th September 2014 @ 11:38 am
All men fear that when women say they are on the pill
That they are lying
This is the crime of Unlawful Sexual Connection
We men live in a nation of women RAPISTS
Ones that really do destroy lives
It happens in your home
0% prosecution rate
Comment by The man in Absentia — Thu 4th September 2014 @ 4:41 pm
There’s certainly a lot to find out about this topic.
I really like all of the points you have made.
Comment by china — Mon 15th February 2016 @ 1:12 am