Institutionalised Sexism
Employers association Chief Alasdair Thompson is obviously not very savvy in media matters, however I have been amused how the media have sensationalised the matter yet seldom comment on the continual matter of institutionalised sexism within the family court and its interpretation of family law.
Few media ever report, or have probably never sat in the family court, where a father is attempting to gain equal access to his children or to stop his child’s mother from relocating to another town with the child.
Two displays of sexism at work in society scream out for publication on the front page of print and the lead story in electronic media:
1. Fathers required to prove they are capable (defined by a judge) of looking after children before being given equal shared care.
2. Fathers having their children relocated to another town because a judge decides it’s in the best interests of the child, i.e. Dad does not have the same status as mum so kids wont really miss him after a short time.
These examples are based on sexism and therfore supply the children involved a comprehensive message as to which parent they should respect and model themselves upon.
Telling females that their monthly bodily functions may be affecting their ability to be equal in work output, and thereby diminishing their total pay scale, seems insignificant in comparison. However, it is an easy story to beat up and takes bugger all effort to do any research on!!
FYI, my letter to the Board of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern):
To the EMA Board, respectfully
Dear Board Members
Mr Thompson expressed a belief that may or may not be mistaken; in reply I have not seen any research findings or even good argument that has effectively refuted his statement. Further, his comment appears to have been reported out of context and any offence taken has been based largely on extrapolation from his actual statement.
The angry mob calling for Mr Thompson’s life to be ruined serves mainly to highlight how extremist and violent the ideology of feminism has become. No opinions are now allowed that might disagree with feminist preference. For example, although there are clearly many complex reasons for the gender earnings gap, only the standard party line of patriarchal privilege and repression of women is permitted to be uttered. Such censorship will stifle the development of valid understanding and therefore solutions.
Please do not give in to irrational extremism. Please do not treat people’s protection from feeling offended as more important than fundamental social goods such as the right to free speech and the recognition of someone’s skills and contribution. Please do not allow any ideology to disallow contrary opinion; this mistake has been made so often in history with terrible consequences that there is no excuse for repeating it.
Yours faithfully
Hans Laven
PO Box 13130
Tauranga
Ph (07)5712435 or (0274)799745
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 25th June 2011 @ 10:29 am
Excellent Hans, you’re comments are spot on. Fortunately Alasdair Thompson can make truthful comments and not be detained in a psychiatric ward or executed for ‘hate speech’.
Comment by Doug — Sat 25th June 2011 @ 4:47 pm
The issue is that he didn’t back up his statements with evidence. Such evidence would most likely to be suppressed in New Zealand because it would ruin the job of the ministry of womens affairs as well as a number of NGOs… Like Hans said there is no research against it either.
The best outcome from this is a national debate about the so called ‘pay gap’, though I can see that is becoming highly unlikely as the media whip up hysteria. The worst is that Alasdair Thompson is sacked or has to resign. That would further feminize NZ….
Personally I like this link as I think it draws attention to some of the reasons there can be a disparity:
Comment by noconfidencewithnzfamilycourt — Sat 25th June 2011 @ 8:07 pm
Thanks for your well worded letter Hans.
It’s a blessing to have someone like you so thoughtful in taking such principled stands.
That someone like Mr Thompson has to defend himself against nonsensical feminist ideas just shows how woefully ignorant and misinformed some NZ folks still are.
I note that the whole idea of supporting feminist style socialism is a very hot topic in USA at the moment as the economy is apparently going belly up there. Therefore I see USA MRA have found a soft spot to attack feminism as not just socially unsustainable, but economically unsustainable too as feminist cronyism won’t be able to compete with cultures that subscribe to meritocracy.
I’ll leave it to our resident expert on USA matters Daryl X to fill in the details on that one!
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 25th June 2011 @ 8:38 pm
Copied from another list I’m on:
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 27th June 2011 @ 4:03 pm
Interesting reading from the NBR
Research backs Thompson’s period
Under-fire EMA boss Alasdair Thompson’s comments about female absenteeism due to menstrual cycles may have been right, according to a recent research paper
I might or might not agree with Alistar Thompson but he has the right to express his view without the thought police supported by a rabid media persecuting him.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 27th June 2011 @ 10:20 pm
Thanks, Skeptik. But first I offer this correction: the US is NOT pursuing feminist style socialism (unless another word for feminist style socialism is fascism). A distinction I draw between socialism and fascism is illustrated in the following example: in Europe, medical care is socialized (and whether anyone agrees with socializing medical care or not and whether anyone thinks it works or not or whether a country can afford it or not I won’t get into) and the same basic care is available to anyone and there are economic provisions in place to make that happen. The US is different because, unlike Europe, it forces everyone to have access to the same basic medical care, does not provide any provisions for it (or at least those provisions are individual subsidies of your insurance that you must purchase from a private insurer and is based upon your income), and disables you financially if you can’t afford it and then puts you in jail. The US is not offering a socialized approach to medicine but a fascist approach. Instead of a reward based system where the variable is degree of award as a function of ability to pay, the US is administering punishment as a function of an individual’s inability to pay. That is the US interpretation of socialism – kinda screwed up don’t you think. And this all ties into feminism because if you are a married man with kids and your wife decides she wants another man and a better standard of living that you as a man are not affording her, she just leaves you, takes you for everything she can get and gets a second income (child support) to go along with it. As a man who is divorced and owes child support, you cannot collect the subsidies for your insurance because like child support, the subsidies are based upon your income from which child support is not deducted – and anyway, if you owe child support, a man is not allowed to collect ANY government support, including subsidy of cost for your health insurance, which means any man who owes child support basically can’t afford health insurance because he will not benefit from the subsidy and he will eventually go to jail for inability to pay for the health insurance if he already isn’t in jail for child support arrears. Sounds pretty screwed up – huh? That’s because it is.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 27th June 2011 @ 11:48 pm
Oops – sorry about the gramar. It’s early morning here in America. “Provide any provisions for” should just be “provision for”.
Our government has egregiously misrepresented its intentions concerning medical care to its own population and the world. Most people haven’t bothered to check the details. If they did, most (at least the women) really wouldn’t care about implications of this plan. If you’re a man, that’s where the term “death panels” have come in. Basically, our medical care bill is a “death panel” for men. Scary.
Comment by Darryl X — Mon 27th June 2011 @ 11:57 pm
If I didn’t make it clear in my first two e-mails:
Socialism is a reward based system in which cost for health care is spread out among the population and is based upon ability to pay.
Medical care in the US is fascism because it is a punishment based system in which care is rationed as a function of a man’s inability to pay.
Punishments are destitution and prison and men are not eligible for any assistance or relief from states or the federal government because of things like child support. Owing child support exempts a man from public assistance and welfare.
Women are exempt from fascism and this punishment based system because they can and do get child support in a majority of instances and that child support is not considered income (on which federal subsidy of a person’s expensive private health insurance is based). A man’s income and subsidy of his expensive private health insurance is calculated despite the excessive child support he owes.
Therefore, the medical care system is not socialism but is fascism and benefits or favors women and feminists and punishes men, especially men of lower income.
The private insurace is very expensive because it is developed by those profiting from the system and who lobby Congress for the laws that make the insurance very expensive. Those profitting and who lobby represent the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry and the Nat’l Organizatin for Women, among others. It’s a giant cluster fuck of greed and corruption and excessive entitlement.
In preparation for these developments (and likely martial law) in our health care system, the federal government has (1) contracted out to a large military corporation (Haliburton) the construction of three containment facilities for 10,000 men each (that’s ten-thousand men each or thirty-thousand total) in the states of Washington, Georgia and (I think) Wisconsin, (2) the manufacture of huge numbers of rail cars with benches and rings for shackles and manacles to transport these men (I have the order by the federal government from one man responsible for the contracts), and (3) several instances of cooperation among local, state and federal law enforcement sweeps of the public (practice exercises) already resulting in the arrest of 31,000 innocent men (that’s thirty-one-thousand – a significant number of them in arrears for child support) with no history of violence or any real crime.
To support credibility of my claims, I am not some right-wing or left-wing nut but have PhD’s in Psychology and Ecology, a MS in entomolgy and chemical ecology, a strong background in statistics, and a minor in organic chemistry and a BS in environmental biology. My conclusions are based upon considerable interview of many professionals involved in the developments about which I report, and considerable analysis of data from the Dept of the Census, Dept of Justice, state Depts of Corrections, the Dept of Health and Human Services (a misnomer if there every was one), and many universities and private organizations.
A more draconian system could not be imagined. It’s so insidious and destructive that days for the US are numbered.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 12:51 am
Oh, I forgot, another punishment is death for those men who cannot get the medical care they desperately need. That’s one reason the new medical care law is a “death panel”.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 12:53 am
As bad as it is in New Zealand, it could be a lot worse, so don’t let what is happening in the US happen in NZ.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 12:53 am
Oh, and all of these developments are grounds for suspension of passports, so men can’t leave the US if they so desire.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 1:03 am
Basically, the US breaks a man and then puts him in prison or lets him die on the street as punishment for being broke. There, I think I’m done with my analysis. Hope this helps.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 3:56 am
The NZ Herald Business section is packed today with woman’s perspective promotions – the Alasdair Thompson comment, a global women’s meeting somewhere, more women board directors… And amongst so much verbiage, nothing resembling reason or real news can be found. It is all outrage, bluster and appeals for more. I think they’ve overplayed their hand on this one. The Herald has always been a pro-female publication, but now it comes across as more like ‘Seventeen’ than ‘The New Zealand Women’s Daily’. I can’t even get irritated by it anymore.
Comment by rc — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 11:10 am
Hi rc; are you sure it was just the business section? The herald lost my subscription and readership in 2005; no longer being a balanced news sheet but more a vindictive rant for the feminist cause.
Comment by Bruce S — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 5:40 pm
Hi Bruce S. I gave up on the other sections of that rag a long time ago. Thank God for the internet and other news sources.
Comment by rc — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 6:25 pm
Maybe the sudden explosion in reaction to Alasdair Thompson’s comments, more indicates the strength of determination to hide the truth, rather than determination to correct a minor error?
I assume that his comments were based on employer’s statistics. Even if they were slightly off, maybe they weren’t out by much?
i don’t see why women should get extra sickleave for one medical condition. Other workers are no doubt subject to many different forms of sickness, so why should they not be able to access the same amount of sickleave for those diseases?
When a reaction is out of proportion to the apparent issue, then it is worth looking to see what the real issue(sacred cow) is?
The important issue isn’t shooting the messenger, but making sure that the real issues continue to be handled correctly ie in accordance with Human Rights Act and equity. Keep your eye on the ball….
Another example, men’s and women’s access to Government superannuation. I suggest that access to superannuation should start say 7 years before average life expectancy for men and women.
Alternatively, could we shave down women’s life expectancy, by requiring women to share in dangerous work, eg army, mining… Or, should we improve men’s life expectancy, by stopping familycaught judge suicide drivers?
Should we stretch women, so they can be as tall as men, or cut men off at the knees instead……..?
I’m not sure if I am drunk, or just stupid?
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 7:56 pm
Hi Daryl X,
Here was the Richard Zubaty take from at least a decade ago on the subject of this post:
The New Aristocrats
What do we think of when we think of aristocrats? Wealthy estate owners robed in fine clothes? Social lions, blessed by birth, with immunity from performing heavy labor, and freedom from the tedious business of fighting wars? Pampered scions with privileged access to the ear of the King? Emotionally reserved cultural nobles comporting themselves with an air of moral superiority? The trend-setters of pomp and spectacle? The social Petri dish of rumor and gossip?
Forbes magazine says women own 65% of America’s wealth and spend 80% of consumer dollars. Warren Farrell says six times more retail space is allotted to women’s personal items than to men’s.
Less than 1% of bricklayers, asphalt pourers, and heavy laborers are women. Women do not fix their own cars or repair their own toilets.
Women are not required to register for the Selective Service. Women may aspire to becoming senators or judges or corporate tycoons, but they are not obligated to fight the wars that preserve our government and economic system.
Women have organized powerful lobbying entities which put pressure on Washington to address women’s issues and ignore men’s issues. Women are the inheritors of government policies which afford them special privilege in the arenas of divorce, custody, reproductive rights; crime and sentencing; health care and longevity; and military service.
Aristocrats dominate culture through sheer pomposity, exude airs of moral and cultural superiority, and disdain those “beneath” them. Women spend more money on “culture” than men. They consume more books, films, live performances and domestic items. In doing so they warp popular culture to appeal to their biases.
Women’s presumptions and prejudices rule popular media, education, and advertising. Things of interest to women are widely regarded as being culturally superior to things of interest to men. Designer fashion shows get news coverage. Salmon fishing and hot rods do not. Women do not hesitate to belittle and shame men for their “cruder” tastes.
Aristocrats and feminist enforcers aggressively censor people or ideas with which they disagree. They will bully, sabotage, and openly molest adversaries. They do not die in foreign wars protecting freedom of speech, and have thereby perversely concluded that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for them, and not for anyone else.
As knights are considered morally superior to common soldiers, so women are considered morally superior to men. Women are believed when they lie, forgiven when they cheat, and sentenced to 50% less jail time when convicted of the same crimes as men. When a man hits a woman we despise him as a brute. When a woman hits a man we ask what HE did to provoke her. Why the duplicity? Like all aristocrats, women are assumed to adhere to a higher moral standard than common men.
Aristocrats wear make-up, restrain their emotions in public, and project a regal image. Women are experts at controlling and manipulating emotions since these are their main weapons in the war between the sexes. Men are spontaneous, direct creatures. Women are florid and catty – their glowing blandishments and glittering solicitude most often mask a covert agenda.
Strike up the band and bring on the chorus. Aristocrats and women adore pomp and spectacle. Both are breeding ponds for rumor and gossip and other social viruses.
If America created a special class of men who could hold high office without fighting war, control vast wealth by means of special government connections, and evade hard labor by claiming cultural and moral superiority, we would consider them parasites, a throwback to monarchy – bloody aristocrats!
And we wouldn’t kiss the seats of their bluejeans. We’d mount a media campaign to take them down a notch. Or we’d put them on a boat back to Europe to exert their rivalries in a society resigned to social class divisions.
Comment by SKeptic — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 9:06 pm
Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.
Comment by SKeptic — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 9:08 pm
Skeptic,
reading your list of advantages for the few, reminds me of skating on thin ice. It is exhilarating fun. It goes very well, until there is a sudden cracking noise and its all over. Then the change is as dramatic, as it is sudden. From warm, to freezing cold. There is also a risk of being swept under the ice, so the only way out is to kick through it, if you can….
Unstable equilibriums will always eventually turn around, with devastating consequences, if you took the old order as being permanent.
What should we be doing, to start the cracking?
When I read your post, I was thinking of the familycaught beneficiaries (“judges” and lawyers).
Thanks, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 10:05 pm
Wow, Skeptik. Once you’ve written that, what else is there.
I’m surprised that women do not own more than 65% of wealth and do not spend more than 80% of consumer dollars. They certainly receive the vast majority of public assistance.
As revealed by many sociological studies, men only “hit” a woman reluctantly and usually in defense of themselves or more often their children (the men are usually provoked in extreme ways). Women usually hit men because the men are not being sensitive to their emotional needs (the women are holding the men and everyone else hostage with their emotions, which is solipsism, and to enable their malignant narcissism – their attacks are unprovoked). And as we all know, women are responsible for more domestic violence than men.
No doubt, women in the US are primarily responsible for the rapid disintegration of the economy, creating a slave-based system that is doomed to collapse.
That Richard Zubaty and so many others have seen what is happening and that so few have championed the cause against such tyranny and oppression is disappointing.
Comment by Darryl X — Tue 28th June 2011 @ 11:40 pm
Hmmmmmm. Perhaps there is a link between what gender owns the wealth in America, spends the money, and the state of their economy?
Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Thu 18th August 2011 @ 12:06 am
@Mr A – I can confirm those numbers. Hmmmmmmmm. Yup, I think there is a relationship between who has and spends all the wealth and the state of our economy (such as you can call it an economy anymore). Expect more craziness – for more information on the economy, please visit a web-site called dollarcollapse.com. It is a daily compilation of articles and analyses concerning collapse of the US economy and state of the global economy. In the past couple years that I have consulted this site, there have been only a couple articles concerning women and they have been fairly benign. No one wants to implicate women in any of our mess, but the funny thing is that it is all about the women. Then entire collapse of our economy is caused by women. Ask any man on the street and they’ll just shake their heads and say, “The women in this country…”. Anyone investing in our post feminist dystopian police state has to be nuts. Revolution coming soon. Expect stock market (DOW) to around 3,000 (yes, that’s three-thousand or lower) and dollar value relative to average global currencies to about 0.25 (currently at around 0.70).
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 19th August 2011 @ 9:06 am