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

More “Hysteria”

Filed under: Gender Politics — Bruce S @ 10:22 am Sat 17th December 2011

Full story here:

NZ Herald: One in five US women raped

Seems our brothers in the USA have been extremely busy defiling their womenfolk – one in five woman now claiming to have been raped. Can this really be true or are we just being exposed to more dribblings from the hystera?


  1. One question – what was the definition of “rape” used?

    I’m not challenging the numbers per se. I can’t as I have no independent information one way or the other, but there are a couple of things that do leap out at me here…

    1) Federal budgets are being trimmed left and right in the US due to tight economic times
    2) It’s not going to hurt cause of the US Centres for Disease Control by publishing this.

    If this was Harvard Medical peer reviewed and independent research I would be deeply concerned.

    Right now, I hope it’s not true, and am deeply suspicious of the research.

    Comment by Nigel — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 11:56 am

  2. I think statement “One in five US women being raped” is just exaggeration to max.

    I do believe rape does happen but I do not believe it happen in this ratio.

    I sure this research is done by those Radical man hating Feminist organization which most time produce miss

    leading information. While rape does exists but we can not ignore the fact that some women use Rape as weapon

    against men by furs accusation. If you look at the things radical feminists are doing in US society you will

    see way man are so angry to ward women and what their resentment can do to women. I believe rape is one of

    them. However I believe this Article is bit too exaggerated. And there for I wouldn’t believe it 100%.

    Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 1:09 pm

  3. It seems more and more we MRA have to do the job the NZ Herald and other parts of the mainstream media should be doing.
    Thank goodness – alongside men’s inventiveness and entrepreneurial spirit that we have the internet to make that possible and their irrelevant scribblings more and more obvious and worthy of being marginalized.

    As usual the NZ Herald offensively characterizes males as suspicious or outright bad. This piece of feminist bullshit agitprop could have been penned by a any number of femifascists including their resident hack Rosemary McLeod. However the folks at NZ Herald don’t even have the guts to ascribe an author’s name to this piece of man hating tripe. A sure sign that this is yet another feminist toilet bowl floater nobody wants to take responsibility for.
    Here’s what they could be reporting on from USA instead.
    It’s BIG news in the manosphere, but typically it’s been overlooked by the Herald –

    Unlike the Herald’s male smearing gutter press you’ll find this piece IS ascribed to an author and all the evidence is provided upfront – no dubious ‘research’ methods strategically hidden.

    Likewise is this special edition radio show about the whole affair dubbed Agent Orange –

    Clue to young NZ Herald reporters wanting to be relevant and take on the old guard by making a splash with real news – You want the real skinny on men’s issues?
    Come here to MENZ more often. We supply it gratis.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 1:14 pm

  4. The ‘full report’ on the research can be downloaded here. From a short perusal and because I believe it important that some scientific critique be recorded and available to others, I note the following and I add my comments:

    (i) The figures were obtained through telephone interviews of almost half an hour each (median time 24.7 minutes).

    Interviews are a preferred method of feminist-oriented researchers because they afford maximum opportunity (a) to manipulate the subject through leading questions, suggestion, defining normal, innocent or benign experiences as abuse, biased reframing, selective attention to and reinforcement of responses in the interviewer’s desired direction, and other tricks, and (b) to misrepresent, embellish and/or interpret subjects’ responses to make them inflate totals in line with the study’s ideological underpinnings.

    There is no reason to believe that simple, anonymous questionnaires would not provide data as accurate as it is possible for self-report to be. Obtaining much higher figures through extended interviews doesn’t mean that those figures are more accurate; in my opinion, quite the reverse.

    (ii) Only self-report data were used.

    There is little reason to expect that people will answer honestly. For example, in NZ’s recent election many voters in Epsom repeatedly told pre-election polls that they would not vote for John Banks but then did vote for him and probably always intended to. What they told pollsters appeared designed to advance their aims rather than to tell the truth. Similarly, in our culture of misandry and widespread belief that women are disadvantaged and need more help, programmes and funding, one might expect many male and female respondents in such a survey to lie or exaggerate to support a good cause.

    Self-report is also very vulnerable to memory distortion, something that has been shown to be almost inevitable and often unbelievably extreme. For example, if the same survey approach had been undertaken to elicit accounts of alien abductions the researchers would almost certainly have found a surprising number of people had suffered that particular trauma. Given the highly manipulative interview method for gathering data, it would be rare for responses not to be affected in less extreme ways by memory distortion. The respondent is telling the truth as they see it now, with the assistance of the helpful interviewer. So, for example, that exploratory pass your pimply teenage boyfriend made that surprised you (and that he immediately desisted from when you moved his hand) now is remembered as sinister, persistent and in contravention of the clear preference you’re sure you must have expressed to him earlier.

    In the present survey, no attempts appeared to be made to validate the survey responses. For example, if serious violence was reported, records of police intervention or Court convictions could have been checked, medical records could have been accessed to support claims of injury or sexually transmitted diseases. This could have been done on a probe basis, i.e. for a sample of respondents only. But it wasn’t. Guess why?

    Even though only self-report data had been obtained, the researcher blithely reported ‘key findings’ that, for example, “nearly 1 in 5 women have been raped…” rather than “nearly 1 in 5 women claimed to have been raped…”; i.e. they misrepresented their data as findings of fact when all they had were allegations.

    (iii) Only women were used to conduct the interviews.

    Apparently, women have been found to get higher numbers of claims of abuse and this is assumed to mean the data are more accurate. Of course, it could mean other things and probably does! Regardless, the researchers’ gender discrimination in using only female interviewers speaks for itself and can only suggest bias likely to pervade the research throughout.

    (iv) The research methods were heavily based on assumptions that respondents would find it difficult to disclose the experiences that the researchers sought and would require emotional support in doing so.

    Well yes, it’s sensible to train interviewers to recognize signs of distress in respondents. However, the emphasis on this appeared to permeate the entire process, inevitably leading to suggestion and manipulation. For example, the interviewer will convey the idea that many women have abuse to disclose but are reluctant to do so but in this interview you will be supported and your reluctance will be understood as trauma, etc etc. The demand characteristics of this will be immense and many respondents may well feel obliged to come up with something in line with what this kind, understanding interviewer expects to hear.


    “Physical violence includes a wide range of behaviors from slapping, pushing or shoving to more severe behaviors such as being beaten, burned, or choked.”

    That is, a light-hearted or affectionate, non-injurious tap (that one might consider inappropriate but could not reasonably be seen as violent) can go down as a ‘slap’; and ‘pushing’ or ‘shoving’ even when trivial and non-violent (e.g. your teenage sibling shoves you lightly when you haven’t left enough room for him in the back seat of the car to plug in his seatbelt in), will do nicely to bolster the violent incident figures.


    “In this report, severe physical violence includes being hurt by pulling hair, being hit with something hard, being kicked, being slammed against something, attempts to hurt by choking or suffocating, being beaten, being burned on purpose and having a partner use a knife or gun against the victim.”

    Well yes, such acts will often be truly violent, but it depends on how the interviewer defines them and leads the respondent. For example, (a) hair might be pulled accidently when caught in another person’s gear, (b) a ‘kick’ could be a light shove with the foot when your sister refuses to take her foot off your keys when you’re in a hurry, and (c) you might be ‘slammed’ against the door frame when you refuse to move over to allow your brother through the door until he meets some unreasonable demand you are making of him. No worries, it’s all good to throw them in with the truly violent experiences in order to inflate the ‘serious violence’ figure.


    “Questions on sexual violence were asked in relation to rape (completed forced penetration, attempted penetration, and alcohol or drug-facilitated completed penetration), being made to penetrate another person, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences.”

    ‘Alcohol or drug facilitated penetration’ of course means that if you got drunk and had sex then it was the other person raping you. This is in line with feminist laws that can magically define consent as not having been given when in fact it was. Strange though isn’t it, if you choose to get drunk and drive then it’s your fault, but if you get drunk and have sex then it’s someone else’s fault.

    What does ‘being made to’ do some sexual act mean? How can someone make you? Ok, if they held a gun to your head or threatened to hurt you, then one might see that as ‘making you do it’. But I’m sure the definition used by these researchers applied to any act that respondents, especially female respondents, did that they now feel embarrassed to remember, but at the time was fully voluntary even though by request or encouragement.

    ‘Sexual coercion’ may well include a simple request for sex that perhaps was unwanted. ‘Unwanted sexual contact’ may well have included that teenage exploratory pass that stopped as soon as you objected. And as for ‘non-contact unwanted sexual experiences’, the mind boggles; I guess they ranged from sexual jokes with weak punchlines to the kind of psychic sexual abuse alleged against David Letterman by some tv watcher he had never met or known the existence of (a Court actually imposed a protection order against Letterman for this, I kid you not). Perhaps the woman who needed protection from Letterman’s psychic violence was one of the survey respondents.


    ” Stalking questions were aimed at determining a pattern of unwanted harassing or threatening tactics used by a perpetrator and included tactics related to unwanted contacts, unwanted tracking and following, intrusion, and technology-assisted tactics.”

    Again, no doubt this will capture truly horrid experiences of a threatening stalker. However, this definition as provided could easily include quite minor and innocent situations such as a briefly persistent but harmless suitor hoping to change the mind of a desired beau, or a discarded ex-husband wanting to discuss having his children in the holidays (who the hell does he think he is anyway?).

    (ix) Reported violence and reported life problems such as illnesses were misrepresented as causal relationships; e.g. health problems were assumed to be consequences of the reported violence.

    Avoiding misrepresentation of correlational data as if causal is a very basic principle of science, clearly too inconvenient for these researchers to worry about.

    I could go on but I think the issues covered already will be enough to pass judgement. The study clearly had little interest in finding out or conveying the truth. SOFS, same old feminist shit.

    I respect the scientific method as the best way to establish truth about earthly events. However, the kind of research we see here is a misuse of science and indeed threatens the status of social science as something we can have any confidence in. Well, I guess feminism has been happy to destroy other fundamentally important bastions of civilization like the family, Magna Carta rights and justice, so why not science too? Science was so male anyway…

    Oh by the way, the reporting in the NZ Herald fails to mention that the survey also interviewed men (9,970 women and 8,079 men) and found, for example, that

    “More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.”

    “About 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate”


    “Nearly half of all women and men in the United States have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime (48.4% and 48.8%, respectively).”

    (well no actually, but those proportions of respondents were assisted in interviews to allege those experiences).

    It is nothing short of outrageous that the NZ Herald would leave out all reference to the violent victimization alleged by males but simply report the female figures. The Herald thereby deliberately implied that the study found a significant problem of violence towards women but no significant violence towards males, when in fact the study found high levels of violence reported by both genders.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 3:36 pm

  5. Is it just me? After reading the myriad reports, studies, surveys etc I am jaded by all this hackneyed reporting from the abuse industry! With the new, totally nebulous definitions of terms like abuse, assault, violence and rape; the words are now almost meaningless; or at least fail to convey what they once used to.

    There was a time when I believed the axiom that the pen was mightier than the sword. With words now so dull; I suspect the sword is slowly, but surely, regaining it’s edge.

    Comment by Bruce S — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 8:42 pm

  6. Hmmm, I seem to remember encountering in my research for an article that 30% of men have been coerced or forced into sexual acts by their female partners. Thats called rape. So this would mean that 1 in 3 men have been raped by women. This is worse than ANY stats women like to report.
    Seems that yet again women are shown as the violent and manipulative creatures we all know they are.

    Comment by Phoenix — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 10:42 pm

  7. Parliament will convene early in the new year to rush through emergency laws to cope with increasing outbreaks of Men’s Rights Activism in New Zealand.

    The Presumption of Future Divorce Act.

    Marriage law is now changed such that signing the marriage certificate brings forward the wholesale transfer of assets from husband to wife that more usually takes place upon the future divorce.
    The new Presumption of Future Divorce Act states that in order to make any future divorce more efficient, men must transfer all bank accounts, businesses and property into the wife’s name on signing of the marriage certificate. It is hoped that this new legislation will bring down the cost and stress of divorce and allow women full control of her husbands assets immediately, without the extended delays common with the divorce process.
    Businesses celebrated the new law by offering all newly-wed women a special pampering weekend for only $5000 (specially reduced from $5100) and an unlimited line of credit at fashion stores. They said the take up of the offers has been phenomenal. One newly married woman exclaimed: “I could never have afforded this without this great change in the law. My husband would never spend like this and the financial freedom I now enjoy can only strengthen our marriage.”
    When asked, husbands-to-be shrugged and cited that it was not something that bothered them because: “divorce is something that happens to other people, and in any event, my future wife is not like that.”

    The DNA Contributors Act.

    Government today formalised what has always been unofficially practiced and enforced by the family court and stripped all fathers of legally presumed parental rights.
    The new law means that all fathers are now officially renamed DNA Contributors and their sole legal right is the responsibility to pay for their child’s upbringing. Women’s groups said that this was a perfectly fair arrangement as “no mother would deny a man access to his child if he was a decent DNA Contributor”, and it would greatly simplify custody hearings because such hearings would simply no longer be necessary.
    “Formalising the arrangement between mothers and sperm donor in this way, makes it much easier for mothers to deal with DNA Contributors who are not behaving as she would like”, said Charlotte Harpy of the campaign group ‘Mother Knows Best’. “And it also makes it easier for the DNA Contributors, because they now know ahead of time that they will fail to see their children if they go to court, rather than kidding themselves over years and years of court appearances, that there might be a chance.
    Everybody wins.”
    DNA Contributor groups did not offer a comment as they were too busy designing a logo for their new name: ‘DNA Contributors 4 Justice’.

    The Legal Human Castration Act.

    Hilarious Katherine cuts for pleasure.
    From today, it is legally permissible for a wife to castrate her husband or boyfriend if she has suffered abuse from him in the past. The evidence required to prove that she received abusive treatment from the castrated spouse, is a sworn statement from the woman that he was indeed abusive and/or made her cry.
    The minimum required level of abuse for her to be acquitted, is set at shouting and/or door-slamming. Dame Brenda Hale was also said to offer that: “periods of ignoring her for longer than 60 minutes and the purchase of one or more unwanted gifts for the woman would also count as abuse severe enough to justify castration.”
    Further, the man would not be permitted to ask that she actually prove that he was abusive, because the Legal Human Castration Act presumes that in enduring the unpleasant task of severing his testicles, she has suffered enough.

    The All Female University Act.

    All-female universities are to open now that so few men are doing well enough to attend university.
    It is thought that bringing proper focus to women – who now make up the vast majority of students – would help bring equality to education by delivering more appropriate tuition to women, who are continually denied this when men occupy the same campus.
    University doors and entryways can now officially be painted pink, rather than just metaphorically and university staff have come out fully in favour of the new measures. As Samantha Smeghead, professor of Gender Studies remarked: “Women will finally be able to express themselves more freely with the patriarchal agents removed from the classroom and, anyway, men tend to make the campus look scruffy.”
    It is also thought that incidences of campus sexual assault and rape should be much reduced, seeing as the only men on campus will be janitors and gardeners. All such staff will be required to work in pairs and made to wear police monitored electronic tags. Additionally, an armed female supervisor will be close by, ready to respond in case of any attempts of sexual harassment by the men, or even worse, any attempt to enroll.
    Women’s groups lauded the proposals and it is expected to pass into law without opposition. Men’s groups could not be reached for comment, as it was a big rugby weekend.

    The Women’s Prison Closure Act.

    Women’s prisons are to formally close their doors to women with immediate effect. Existing female prisons will be converted to men’s prisons after being renovated to make them less comfortable.
    The government has fully adopted the proposals put forward by the Women’s Justice Taskforce in 2011 and has decided that prison is not the right punishment for female criminals. Women will now not face the arduousness of trials for their crimes and will instead face a three-woman panel to decide what level of community service she will need to serve, dependent on the severity her crime.
    Murder will carry a maximum sentence of 3 years service, which might consist of working most weekends at shelters for battered women or similar severe punishment. She will also be required to write an essay, explaining why what she did was wrong.

    The Presumption of Abuse Act

    Murder of a husband or boyfriend, however, will carry much less severe sentences than other murders under the new Presumption of Abuse Act, which affords women the legal presumption of acting in self-defence whenever she kills an intimate male partner. This will save the court’s time and tax payer’s money, by fast-tracking women who kill their male partners and sparing them the trauma of a long investigation or trial, or having to demonstrate a syndrome.
    Men’s groups sent several emails in protest, saying that this made them “second-class citizens”. The Prime Minister responded in a recent interview saying that men needed to: “stop whining and man-up! Women would not go back in the box and if you are unlucky enough to be killed or castrated by your spouse, then you undoubtedly deserved it.”

    The Extended Abortion Act

    Women can now no longer be prosecuted for killing their children, provided that the child is younger then 3 years old.
    The new Late Abortion Act allows women to extend her existing licence to kill a child, from the current maximum 24 weeks, to up to the new maximum of 3 years after birth, providing she can find a women’s advocate to testify that she is afflicted by one of the 216 distinct syndromes that are proven to only affect women.
    It is expected that most women will still use the favourite Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy when they murder their babies. However, others are expected to try out the newer Abdication of Responsibility Syndrome and Temporary Loss of Adulthood Syndrome.
    Still others, might go for the brand new Comprehensive Female Multi-Spectrum Generic Temporary Loss of Any and All Responsibility Disorder Syndrome (by Proxy), which is a cutting-edge catch-all syndrome, to help women who cannot be adequately protected from punishment by using one of the other 215 syndromes.
    “With this newly invented safety syndrome”, says its inventor Beverley Simpleton (known in academia affectionately, as BS), “It is hoped that no woman who is unfortunate enough to have killed her children, might suffer the indignity of being punished for it.”
    A parliamentary committe erupted into laughter at the idea that men’s psychology should be investigated to find out if men might have equivalent syndromes to explain their murders of children or spouses, saying that it was: “a sickening attempt to subvert justice by hiding behind faux psychology.”
    “It is misogynistic attitudes like that”, added one MP, “that are holding women back and preventing real equality.”

    The Rape Allegation Act

    The burden of proof in rape cases has been officially moved onto the accused man in rape cases and now, any women who claims to have suffered rape, has only to identify the rapist to secure prosecution.
    Investigations to establish prima facie guilt are no longer required and nor is any forensic evidence. Following the lead of Swedish law on being charged with rape, it is now wholly up to the man to prove he did not commit the crime.
    Women’s groups heralded this decision as a victory for common sense, citing the well established fact that a woman “would never lie about rape” and that this saved the tax payer money at a time when we can ill afford to spend it “defending men from crimes they undoubtedly must have committed”.
    Men who find themselves unable to prove that a rape did not occur, will now receive a mandatory 20 year prison term without need for an expensive trial. A win-win for the national economy and women’s rights.
    When asked, men said that this “didn’t seem right, somehow”, but then again, “it wouldn’t happen” to them and there were more important things in life, such as “the ruby finals and breasts.”

    The Sexual Harassment Protection Act

    Sexual harassment law received a boost today when a tribunal ruled that a woman could be sexually harassed by an unborn baby boy.
    The woman, who remains nameless for legal reasons, claimed that she felt and somehow just knew that the unborn baby boy, in only his second trimester, was: “looking at me through his mothers belly and seemed to be undressing me with his eyes”.
    The distraught complainant has received undisclosed damages, and the unborn boy has been pre-expelled from school and placed on the national sex offenders registry.
    In another case, a woman has won 5 million dollars from McCrapalds restaurants by claiming that she was sexually harassed by a customer more than six years ago, when he ordered a burger and said: “Hey, you have really nice eyes”.
    The unnamed victim has been under medical supervision ever since the traumatic incident and cannot sleep due to having recurrent nightmares.
    McCrapalds has stated that they would be taking all necessary steps to save women from compliments and all unwanted attention from men by building special screens in all restaurants, so that no one could see anyone else and also installing audio equipment that would automatically screen out all words that did not involve ordering burgers, nuggets or fries.
    Male customers will have to email their orders from the front of the store and robot arms will hand the food to them through hatches to avoid any possibility of female workers experiencing unwanted physical contact with male customers.
    Female customers, however, would enter through a different restaurant entrance and order direct with staff as usual.
    Women’s groups claimed that this was an important victory for the rights of women in the workplace, who should be able to work “without fear of being spoken to or looked at by men in any way at all.”
    Men’s groups, headed by contributors at the NZ Mangina Project agreed that the rights of women should be paramount no matter what small inconveniences befell men.
    “To disagree with such an arrangement might cast the men’s movement in a bad light”, opined the folks at Reddit. “We are not here to upset women or stand in the way of women’s rights no matter what they demand. We stand in support of men’s rights as long as they come behind women’s, children’s, animals and plants rights. We know our place.”
    Women’s groups seemed quite surprised at this and only added: “They took the words right out of our mouths.”

    The Women’s Health Act

    The government today agreed that health spending for women, currently eight times that of men, and up to 100 times that of men in some areas, was not sufficiently addressing the health needs of women.
    The Minister for Women and Girls stated that: “it is the priority of any modern society to invest in the well-being of women. It is abominable that women are not receiving adequate funding towards this aim, while men continue to receive funds that could be better spent on women.” To this end, the government announced today, that all spending on male health will cease with immediate effect, with all funding re-allocated to female health.
    Spending on female health would receive a further boost with the diversion of funding currently used to reduce workplace deaths, suicides and homelessness. Women’s groups celebrated this, stating that: “as women are barely affected by these other issues, it is only right that the money should instead go into female health where it would save women’s lives.”

    The Pension Reform Act

    Women sure have it rough.
    Women’ groups were delighted today as the government reversed their decision to bring women’s retirement age into line with the age for men: “This shows that government is finally listening to the needs of women who suffer discrimination at every turn.”
    Instead of equalizing the retirement age at 67 for both sexes, men, who have worked until 65 years of age, will now be required to work until age 75 to make up the shortfall in taxation for funding women’s health, whilst women stay at their current retirement age of 60. With men’s life expectancy currently being 76 years, women’s groups were quick to point out that men retiring at age 75 still afforded the average man “the luxury of a full year of retirement to enjoy with their families.
    What more could a man want?”
    A spokeswoman for women’s advocate group ‘Women have it Rough: Always Have and Always Will’ said: “Whilst it’s true that men have for the last 70 years, worked until age 65 whilst women have retired at age 60; and whilst it’s true that disproportionate spending on women’s health means that women live longer and therefore have a long retirement, whereas men die soon after retirement; and whilst it’s also true that it is mainly men who contribute the bulk of money to pay for retirement benefits that only women live to enjoy, the fact remains that women should be getting a better deal.”
    The women’s group ‘Women, Women and Only Women’ added:”The fact that women are female must be of overriding significance to any civilized society. Women deserve more.”
    Men’s groups said that they would much prefer that men didn’t have to work right up to the average age of male death in order to fund women’s retirement. However, they accepted that it’s a man’s duty to do whatever he can for women, particularly because “women have it so bad in our society.”
    In a rare show of solidarity with men, women’s groups fully agreed.

    I’ll keep you posted on further developments.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 18th December 2011 @ 10:55 pm

  8. Great stuff Skeptic, I laughed out loud. But I realise I may look back and realise I laughed at my destiny.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 18th December 2011 @ 11:21 pm

  9. LOL Skeptic – Life is either a tragedy or a comedy. You can see the merit in the Extended Abortion Act. If this had been around in 1980 it would have saved Dingoes from the regrettable presumptions that have been allowed to hang over their heads for the last thirty years. I understand there were howls of relief at Uluru. Perhaps there is room in your commentary for a Media Purification Act.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 19th December 2011 @ 8:02 am

  10. You are off to a great start men. Soooo, ummm. Good luck.

    Comment by julie — Tue 20th December 2011 @ 4:24 pm

  11. Merry Christmas and may your goals for men 2012 come true. Without you, few men will have great support.

    Comment by julie — Tue 20th December 2011 @ 5:23 pm

  12. …and here we go again…

    Comment by AL — Wed 21st December 2011 @ 9:24 pm

  13. A minor request to all MRAs for the new year.
    Please stop dignifying female supremacist utterances with the characterization of ‘argument(s)’. Femaleist filth is in no way argument.
    Femaleists sling shit at walls in anticipation that it will likely stick, but they do not submit arguments. To dignify that shit only facilitates the sticking.
    Femaleists make random utterances, filibuster with strings of non sequiturs, grunts, whines, frivolous and harassing bitching, contrived histrionics, disturbances in the sound carrying medium, but distinctly not arguments.
    To refer to them as arguments is to validate the mutterings of the insanely wicked.
    Stating that the sky is red is not an argument, it’s banter.
    Exclaiming a pay gap or health care gap in the face of men dying 7 years prematurely of every known cause is insane, filthy, insidious wickedry with little parallel.
    Femaleists proselytize and spew insidious propaganda- they do not argue.

    Please, do not dignify their malicious tricks.

    Muchas gracias

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 22nd December 2011 @ 2:35 am

  14. merry xmas skeptic..keep safe everyone and dont let any bitch ruin your christmas…have a good one people

    Comment by Ford — Thu 22nd December 2011 @ 6:06 am

  15. I have enjoyed the excellent debate this year that happens on this site and the efforts everyone makes. Have a great Christmas everyone

    Comment by Doug — Thu 22nd December 2011 @ 4:20 pm

  16. A profound idea to carry into the New Year –

    What we are facing here, appears to be no less than a whole new paradigm in the the theory of evolution!
    Apparently in the western dating pool ecosystem unattractive males repel females.
    Therefore the unattractive males have less chances to end up in jail and/or divorced because of false domestic violence and/or rape charges or in lifelong marital slavery because of an unwanted pregnancy, than other, more handsome specimens.
    As a result it is easier for them to plan their escape, emigrate, find a more understanding female match in a more understanding part of the world and produce a lot of healthy offspring.

    It is not ‘survival of the fittest’ after all.

    So, where is my nobel prize for science?

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 22nd December 2011 @ 8:24 pm

  17. Skeptic, you seem to have a life long adventure waiting for you. I wouldn’t say unattractive men miss out….. but then you and I do life differently.

    You have impressed others on the internet which is of no surprise to me, and I am real happy for you. Merry Xmas to you and all the best for a grand 2012.

    Merry Xmas Ford. You’re an awesome character (I probably shouldn’t think this but you are raising girls and I can’t help but think well of you). PS, you’re real fit too, lol.

    Merry Xmas to you Doug. I hope you have some good plans for 2012. Hey, why not….

    Al, it’s the time of year to look back and look forward. I hope you have things to look forward to ….

    Comment by julie — Thu 22nd December 2011 @ 8:52 pm

  18. On another note, I don’t want to get into politics with men and women anymore. This site gives men opportunity to reach out to men’s groups too which is awesome.

    But I am asked to research some of the new moves from men in parliament. If they are true … women are going to come out worse. Like if a woman has a partner, her partners income comes into child support while if a man gets a partner her income doesn’t get included. I can’t believe United Future would do that as I thought Peter Dunne was for equality.

    Right now I am focused on the 60% of DPB beneficiaries that are women. (the 40% of fathers are pretty safe). As single mothers getting up at 4/5am every morning to put their kids in daycare and before school care and picking them up at 7/8pm… you’ll understand as single dads.

    Comment by julie — Thu 22nd December 2011 @ 9:01 pm

  19. @Julie. You make some statements but have not given any actual references to it. Where does it discriminate between mother/father partner genders?
    I’ve read some of the amendment and it is proposed to be implemented in 2014. Yes; that’s still more than 2 years away…
    Anyway; we’re going off topic here. Thread is about being raped. I think I can say without hesitation that I have been raped by the IRD as have the majority of NZ fathers. I definitely feel like they’ve been a pain in my ass….

    Comment by JS — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 1:06 am

  20. Following on from post #16 –

    It is very simple actually.
    Smoking hotties are used to being treated like princesses.
    They always win the heart of the biggest alpha bully in the school hallway, and they are constantly followed and admired by a large congregation of pussy worshipers.
    In their cute little mindsets, men are as expendable as paper handkerchiefs.
    More average looking women, on the other hand, have to struggle for male attention and are therefore grateful for every date invitation.
    That is also the reason why so many smoking hotties turn into venomous barren spinsters, after their beauty fades away with years. Average looking girls, on the other hand, have more chances to get married and stay married and produce some healthy offspring before kicking hubby to the curb.

    And, voila, this is yet another empirical proof for my groundbreaking theory of SURVIVAL OF THE UGLIEST.
    Wow! We can look forwards to generations of shrek like folks inhabiting the planet.

    Now, I have looked in the mailbox and found my Nobel prize for science check is still strangely missing.
    I urge the Swedish Academy to send it ASAP.
    I need it to buy my plane ticket to Anywherenotfeministville.
    Hurry, Swedepersons, my biological clock is ticking away!

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 3:00 am

  21. #18 so mr dunne is making men pay child support regardless if they are his kids or not..just the fact your seeing a woman with kids and theyll make him pay..what a mental system…why would a man want to do that ay.
    As for the comment about the dpb..hope they axe the lot..stop paying young girls to have kids and a working parent is no good for kids

    Comment by Ford — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 7:09 am

  22. The misinformation and illogicality in reply #18 needs to be highlighted. Firstly, the statement

    “I am focused on the 60% of DPB beneficiaries that are women. (the 40% of fathers are pretty safe)”

    suggests gender DPB figures that have no basis in reality. A very high proportion of DPB beneficiaries are women (the last figure I obtained from IRD was 88%), many of whom have made a career of having ongoing children for as long as possible after which they can move on to the sexist “Unsupported Woman” benefit for which there is no male equivalent.
    The author of #18 (Julie) also misrepresents proposed changes in so-called ‘child support’ as being gender-specific when they are not. It’s not only women who would be ‘disadvantaged’ according to Julie’s reasoning, but anyone on the receiving end of the ‘child support’. And if Julie truly believed her fallacious DPB figures she would have had to believe that 40% of the people affected by the ‘child support’ changes would be men. However, that would have required logical reasoning and intellectual integrity…
    Further, the claim that male DPB beneficiaries are “pretty safe” is not explained; why would the gender of the receiving parent make any difference to how they will be affected by Dunnenothing’s proposed changes?
    I note also that Julie doesn’t want women’s true financial position to be related to what their ex-partners have to pay them for seizing the children. So if a woman dumped her children’s father for a much richer man, the poor sod still has to pay her the full spousal support to her for taking his children with her. However, if the woman’s true financial position is to be taken into account, then Julie wants the father’s new partner’s income to be taken into account, i.e. the father’s new partner held responsible for supporting someone else’s children.
    However, Julie is correct in suggesting the proposed changes will do little to improve the fairness of the so-called ‘child support’ regime. The real sources of unfairness in the regime include
    (i) the principle that a proportion of a paying parent’s income, rather than a proportion of what is required to meet children’s basic needs, should be paid to the ex-partner (either directly or indirectly through the DPB system);
    (ii) the fact that the proportion paid by someone on an average income amounts to much more than what is required for children’s basic needs (even more so if one assumes only a proportion such as half should be contributed by each parent), and that the ‘child support’ liability rises to ridiculous amounts for those on higher incomes, meaning that ‘child support’ is really paying largely towards the receiving parent’s lifestyle;
    (iii) the principle that ‘child support’ liability be completely unaffected by the paying parent’s wishes regarding care and custody of the children (e.g. preference to provide half the parenting), the circumstances of the separation or indeed whether the receiving parent is allowing the paying parent to have contact with the children at all or obeying Court orders to do so;
    (iv) the failure of the ‘child support’ regime to encourage the most valuable things a non-custodial parent can contribute to children: time and direct contribution. For example, it does not allow the paying parent to meet the ‘child support’ liability by buying necessities directly for the children which would strengthen the children’s relationship with that parent and sense of security within that relationship, as well as countering any efforts to alienate the paying parent from the chidren (a very common tendency in custodial parents).
    Unless and until these sources of unfairness are addressed, the ‘child support’ regime will continue to amount to exploitation mainly of males in favour of females, as of course was always intended.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 10:18 am

  23. Skeptic (#13): Thanks for reminding us not to dignify most femaleist utterances by referring to them as ‘arguments’ when they are not. Also, I really like the term you have introduced here, ‘femaleists’. I think this avoids the difficulty in defining ‘feminism’ which has both called for reasonable changes and gender equality (though that’s largely historical now) and forwarded dishonest, extreme, selfish, socially destructive and misandrist campaigns (always a part of feminism but predominant in recent decades).

    Thanks also for your wonderful contributions to MENZ throughout this year. For me, you have been the #1 contributor to intelligent debate here. On behalf of the Ministry of Men’s Affairs I hereby name you as the Supreme Contributor to Intellectual Development of the NZ Men’s Movement. Unfortunately, there is no cash prize…

    Thanks also to all others who have participated genuinely in the posts and discussions on MENZ. Although there have been many saboteurs and ego-driven distractors, and many contributors have left MENZ because they didn’t like the robust debates, petty bickering or unethical argument styles we sometimes encounter, I still see MENZ as the premiere site for the NZ men’s movement. On the pages of MENZ anyone can find comprehensive analysis, thinking and debate concerning every issue of importance to men in our era.

    Special thanks are due to John Potter who continues to give so much time and (one assumes) money to keep the MENZ site going. We all tend to take each other for granted and this is especially so for John. We appreciate and respect you greatly John for your ongoing commitment.

    Who knows why John Potter does all this, or why so many of us invest our time and effort, at great cost or risk to our reputations in a femaleist society and with little positive response even from other men? I guess some people are driven by a desire to promote truth and to improve society, and that desire is more important to them than climbing social or economic ladders.

    Good work one and all.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 11:28 am

  24. Oh Skeptic, what have I unleashed. You say you were a feminist supporter – don’t you get what attractive women go though? They don’t feel great about men falling at thier feet – it’s just hormones. They want someone to care about their brain.

    Comment by julie — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 12:48 pm

  25. To JS,
    ****@Julie. You make some statements but have not given any actual references to it. Where does it discriminate between mother/father partner genders?***

    This is what I must research.There is allot of fantasy on both sides.

    Comment by julie — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 12:52 pm

  26. Gosh, I love the connection between Hans and Skeptic. You 2 will move mountains as I will with two others.

    If you don;t do this in 2012, I will be heartbroken and realise you are just full of ****. PlEASE don’t let me down.

    Comment by julie — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 12:59 pm

  27. No I certainly don’t get what attractive women go through.
    For I don’t get worshiped and mollycoddled by sycophantic pussy-beggers to the point of having my thinking done for me.
    I’m a man, so I have to do my own thinking the vast majority of the time. Therefore unlike them my brain doesn’t atrophy.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 2:10 pm

  28. Hans,
    Thanks for high praise.
    I’m honored to be thought of that way.
    I agree with your thoughts about JP who provides a very worthwhile platform for men to exchange views about their experience as men.
    I agree with your response to Julie who proves to be as irrational and irresponsible as ever – truly a feminist in MRA clothing with her femalist prattlings about how poor widdle wimmin wil be effected by DoneF***all’s latest batch of misandric bile. Then when rightly called to account by you off she trolls with a flippant “this is where more research is needed” as though spreading her misandric femaleist filth in the first place is neither here nor there.
    The narcissism knows no ends either with the “Oh Skeptik! What have I unleashed” comment as though she’s actually responsible for unleashing me in some way – Jesus, what a grandiose smug blooper.
    All of this wrapped up in false see-through end of year bonhomie niceties designed to unnerve and unbalance.
    Ugly repulsive stuff.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 2:40 pm

  29. Be very careful what face creams you buy for you female friends and relatives this Christmas.

    Infant males are routinely sexually mutilated, and the harvested tissues used, among other places in high end women’s cosmetic wrinkle creams.


    Merry Christmas everyone.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 2:48 pm

  30. Good to see Julie being seen for what she is.

    Two years ago, this clarity was inconceivable.

    Congratulations Skeptic for persevering.

    Comment by rc — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 3:41 pm

  31. Thanks rc,
    I owe a debt of gratitude to the Men’s Rights Movement who have taught me a lot over the last few years.
    Writers there have done great work in enunciating female psychology, analyzing and disabusing folks of prevalent feminist ideas.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 4:12 pm

  32. RC, gosh. WTF. How about going back 5 years and how I perstered Skeptic. Oh yeah, 5 years. He has something on me over a 5 year period. What a joke for I have had relations with almost all NZ MRAs but only this dick can complain about me.

    Thank God he cant harm me anymore. (lets not be real and see people but just women)

    Comment by julie — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 6:34 pm

  33. RC, think about it. If you were a woman and you felt choosing one dick was best, would you choose one who liked you or one who wants to slit your throat? I chose the man who wants me dead because he was the safest.

    Comment by julie — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 6:41 pm

  34. Anyways, getting back to Christmas and the end of the best effective year so far, I just want to see you all continue doing the great work you do (I know from emails most men won’t brag at the things they do – on sites). I personally can’t believe the changes I’ve made in 2011.

    NZ is ready for all of what you offer IMO. 2012 may just be the year that changes life. Just keep going one more year. Merry Xmas.

    Comment by julie — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 9:02 am

  35. Julie, why don’t you admit that your claim that 40% of DPB beneficiaries are men was false or made up from nothing? Rather than ignoring any challenge and carrying on talking about yourself.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 9:37 am

  36. Skeptic wrote ‘Infant males are routinely sexually mutilated, and the harvested tissues used, among other places in high end women’s cosmetic wrinkle creams.’

    Yes its time the sexual mutilation of males was outlawed. Here’s an interesting story below.
    ‘London (JTA)-Crown Prince Charles, son of Princess Elizabeth and heir to the British throne, was circumcised in Buckingham Palace by Rabbi Jacob Snowman, official Mohel of the London Jewish community.’

    All males members were circumcised until Dianna wouldn’t let them do this vile practice to William or Harry.

    Comment by Doug — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 10:13 am

  37. “ignoring any challenge and carrying on talking about yourself”.

    priceless observation Hans.
    Thank you.

    The narcissism of many women I meet these days online and off never ceases to amaze me, and leaves me dreadfully cold.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 11:27 am

  38. Hans,
    here’s another word I’ve noticed MRA’s are starting to use which you may find useful.
    I’m sure I won’t need to explain it to you as your writings this year show a very keen intellect.


    One more thing –

    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.
    Emily Jane Toner, Crown Prosecutor and Thief.

    That should help it come up some more in search engines.

    Remember Thomas Ball. He died to save our kids.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 11:42 am

  39. Thomas Ball did not die to save our children – he died of despair. He like some came to realise the reality of our current governance. Faced with the fact that he could neither repair what had been done to him nor change that which had done it, he protested alone with his death. The state crucified the father but he chose the time and place of his death in a world that no longer offered a reason to continue existing. (As opposed to living) He was a trained soldier, an intelligent man and he advocated a violent uprising against the system, yet he chose not to live by his own prescription. Because he realised this was not a viable option he chose death as a way out. What he realised is that the inevitable must happen – society must fail before it can understand the error of its way. He was simply assisting in encouraging that failure whilst saying goodbye to a world he no longer wished to participate in. He was a man going his own way and that can take different forms. Non participation or isolation or suicide. I don’t accept you painting him as a martyr – he was a public suicide not a private one. Attempting to martyr him will not make an ounce of difference; it will not save our children. He was a man that lost faith in his country, in justice, in family and in life itself. If his death is to mean something it is not as you suggest saving our children, it is a challenge to face the paradigm or fail. Only a feminist would hold a child up and cry foul. Let’s not get confused here – this is a men’s site.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 4:01 pm

  40. No confusion D U,
    I take Thomas Bell at his word.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 24th December 2011 @ 6:57 pm

  41. @skeptic. I don’t think we’re on the same page here. I would not for a moment question the man’s sincerity or that he held that belief. Reading his manifesto one can see he resolved the situation to be one of total loss – hence I say he died of despair. What I am saying is this; it is not a good idea to hold him up as a martyr. Rather we need to understand that the future of society depends on what we think, both male and female. The realm of conflict in current thinking is beyond a successful outcome – it is socially destructive. There has to better ways to project this position.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 29th December 2011 @ 10:29 am

  42. DU,

    I can’t say whether I agree with Thomas Ball’s actions or not.
    Better to live a lifetime of emotional pain or end it and make a point? – a very personal choice I’d say.

    Nobody is advocating martyrdom.
    However,if you follow certain ideas in Christianity, a martyr, in accordance with the meaning of the original Greek martys in the New Testament, is one who brings a testimony, usually written or verbal..
    So in that sense he fits the bill perfectly.

    Thomas Ball – He died to save our children.

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 29th December 2011 @ 11:16 am

  43. From my reading of the Thomas Ball case, he didn’t die of despair. His final written piece said nothing about despair. He was proud, positive and wanted the fight to continue. He made a stand to ensure he did not give the male-demonizing and child-hostage-holding forces the ability to control him. He was more like a prisoner of war who took his hidden poison rather than cooperate with the enemy. In departing, he hoped that others would continue fighting the war and he encouraged them to do so, even providing practical advice for how to progress the war. I reach these conclusions based on what he wrote, including the following excerpts:

    I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support…

    If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works…

    I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war…

    I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out…

    Some where along the line I picked up the crazy notion that it is better to be dead as a free man than to live as a serf…

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 29th December 2011 @ 11:33 pm

  44. Perhaps we could all get t-shirts made with ‘Thomas Ball – he died to save our children’ on them. A fitting way to remember another father who fought for childrens rights.

    Comment by JS — Fri 30th December 2011 @ 8:36 am

  45. It’s worth noting too that only 6months prior to Thomas Ball’s self-immolation, Mohamed Bouazizi martyred himself in the same way in Tunisia. This one act triggered the events that brought down the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and likely soon Syria. Ball was ex military, and was clearly a perceptive and thinking man. He didn’t value the kind of life he was forced to live very highly, and he also saw how effectively a martyrdom can ignite an explosive mixture. It’s clear to me from his writing that that is what he wanted. The fact that his name is still being repeated all around the world suggests he wasn’t far wrong. The mixture may not be as explosive as he suspected, but it is definitely flammable.

    Comment by rc — Fri 30th December 2011 @ 8:43 am

  46. i still think about the poor unamed guy in Brisbane who last year set fire to himeself. To my knowledge, no name was ever released of him.

    Comment by JS — Fri 30th December 2011 @ 8:54 am

  47. JS,
    Thank you for reminding us al about the guy who self immolated outside Brisbane Family court last June. You’re right about the media there – they couldn’t be bothered finding out his name or anything about his background. note how an unnamed police source makes an uncorroborated claim about the guy’s suicide not being related to court matters.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 30th December 2011 @ 9:50 am

  48. 40 mths and counting then the system has no more hold over me when it comes to kids..then i can and will quite happily tell them where to stick their pencils

    Comment by Ford — Fri 30th December 2011 @ 9:58 am

  49. Yes JS (#46): Unlike Thomas Ball, that Brisbane guy may have acted mainly out of despair but even then his decision to burn himself right in front of the Court showed he was making a public statement too. Unfortunately he didn’t have the strategic thinking that Thomas Ball had probably largely from his military training. The Brisbane man failed, as far as we know, to prepare a political statement and to deliver it somewhere that would make it public. He failed to plan and strategize so unfortunately his death turned out to be a sad waste of life. However, here we are talking about him, so not entirely so.

    Thomas Ball on the other hand died a soldier and a martyr. He definitely died to save our children. Some more excerpts from his extensive final writing may be of interest, purely academic interest of course. These chosen excerpts I think summarize his message that would take people a long time to understand through reading his long essay. (Please note that these excerpts are the opinions of Thomas Ball alone and do not necessarily represent my views or those of any contributor here or of the MENZ owner. And of course some claim that NZ doesn’t have any problem with misandry so I urge everyone to understand that Thomas Ball’s prescriptions for the U.S. would be totally unjustified here. And I strongly discourage anyone from going outside the law in their protests and activities. After reading this please immediately get rid of all thin-glassed bottles you might have in your garage or your recycling, just to ensure you don’t ever follow Thomas Ball’s advice. I reproduce the following excerpts simply out of respect for this martyr’s death and his wish that his views be aired, views that of course I mostly disagree with.)

    As long as there is a pogrom against men, then women and children are going to end up as collateral damage… If you ask these feminists why are the shelters all full, they will not say because of all the arrests.
    These shelters do not allow men on the property let alone inside the residences. Why is it against the law to use federal money on organizations that discriminate against black, Jews, gays or even women but it is okay to do so against men?
    On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead.
    Betty Friedan wrote that the feminist revolution, like any revolution, would have its excesses. Losing the rule of law is too great to call it a mere excess. It is a catastrophe. It is the heart, mind and soul between the people and their government. These feelings of betrayal by losing it may be permanent. I have 21 years of Army service going back to the Vietnam War. My loyalty to the government should be a given. It is gone. I am certain it will never return regardless of how long I might have lived.
    When a man batters or kills, there is no excuse. When a woman commits the same act, there is nothing but excuses.
    Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.
    But there is one redeeming aspect to men being demonized. Now we men can act like devils… This is going to be fun. You guys are going to end up laughing like hyenas.
    Improvise, adapt and overcome. The Army teaches that to every soldier it trains. They say that no battle plan survives the first five minutes of combat. So your people on the ground had better be able to think for themselves. Taking casualties in war is just an occupational hazard. Taking casualties and not accomplishing your mission is a disaster.
    There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.
    So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses… the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War… And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.
    This is too important to be using that touchy-feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!
    …Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA trailers. If they still do not get the message, then burn down the trailers.
    The easiest way of burning a building is with the Molotov cocktail. It was invented by the Finns when the Soviets invaded in 1939. You fill a bottle with gasoline and stuff a rag in the end for a wick. You light the wick and throw bottle, It shatters on impact spraying gas everywhere and the wick ignites the gas. Simple, readily available, and effective. And only two things to remember.
    First, use a glass bottle. Thinner glass is better than thicker glass. You want it to shatter on impact.
    Second, you need to tie the rag to the bottle. Nothing worse that throwing a Molotov cocktail, landing where you wanted it, and having it shatter perfectly. Then you noticed the wick had fallen out on the way to the target. No wick-no fire.
    Some of these building will have brick faces and metal roofs. Just break a window and throw the Molotov cocktail inside. Carpets, furniture, computer plastic, even paint on the walls will burn. It is okay if the sprinkler goes off.
    Most of the people in prison are there for one key reason. They could not keep their mouths shut. They told someone. That someone told others. The cops hear it and start looking at them for a suspect. That how it works in real life.
    Whether you replace the federal government or not, men are still going to need a legal defense center for men. Something like the NAACP used to get black people their rights.
    …if everyone who has been arrested throws in $10.00 a year then the legal defense center will have a war chest of $360 million.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 30th December 2011 @ 11:03 am

  50. Gosh,
    I’ve just realized no feminist or mangina enabler has bothered to try suing Thomas Balls estate for damage to the pavement outside the Brisbane family court where he self immolated.
    Wow! they really didn’t keep their eye on the ball and missed a golden payout opportunity.

    Unlike in this case – where it seems even after a man dies some femi entitlementholic will want a slice of his pie.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 31st December 2011 @ 1:08 pm

  51. #50..isnt the world a pathetic place

    Comment by Ford — Sat 31st December 2011 @ 7:22 pm

  52. Skeptic…

    Thomas Ball self-immolated in front of the Cheshire County Court House in New Hampshire.

    We don’t know the name of the Brisbane bloke.

    Comment by gwallan — Mon 2nd January 2012 @ 10:42 am

  53. Skeptic (#7): I hope you don’t mind that I follow up your announcement of pending law changes with further news releases:

    Women Found to be Genetically Superior

    It has finally been proven! Women are genetically superior to men. A team of researchers at the University of Familotomy found that women’s chromosones contained only positive, responsibile and truthful genes. Associate Professor Nicki Castrating said “It’s reassuring that our study has confirmed what women have known for a long time in their special ways of knowing. This finding can now be incorporated into the Treaty of Wahine and all new initiatives and laws can be assessed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to ensure they only contribute to the reputation and interests of the superior gender.”

    The study employed a team of female interviewers to contact 90,000 women by telephone, asking them about their genetic composition. 50.01% of those interviewed rated their genetic composition as either perfect or almost perfect with respect to attributes such as caring, common sense, social responsibility, networking, fashion sense and a range of other characteristics. 49.99% said they had no knowledge of their own genetic composition, but 93% of those interviewed also reported that they had found men’s genetic composition to be significantly inferior and that men’s chromosones mainly consisted of genes for stupidily, smelliness, and power-and-control seeking. Associate Professor Castrating added that this was the first research confirming the presence of the Duluth gene that makes men constantly seek patriarchal power and control, in contrast to women’s genes that make them only ever seek fairness, collaboration and consensus. She eagerly awaited detailed future chemical analysis of the Duluth gene, although she acknowledged that such ‘male’ linear methods of science were now considered unnecessary.

    Castrating expressed concern about the high proportion of women who reported having no knowledge of their own genetic composition. “Centuries of repression have led to this appalling lack of self-knowledge in women and this highlights the ongoing importance of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in our guard against any resurgence in men’s thinking or political power.”

    Femalist Authorized Press

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 1:05 pm

  54. Planned Reforms to Domestic Violence Laws

    Protection Orders will be reformed in the government’s latest raft of laws to improve gender equality. Domestic Violence will be designated a male-only crime and definitions of domestic violence will be broadened. Around 317000 male behaviours will be formally added to the list of violence eligible for a Protection Order, including the following:
    – Withholding from female family members requested sexual intimacy, other actions or money
    – Performing sexual acts in displeasing or unsatisfying ways
    – Causing any soiling in or on a woman’s body or clothing through ejaculation
    – Participating in sexual intimacy that a woman later realizes she didn’t really want
    – Disagreeing with or criticizing any female family member
    – Offering advice to a female
    – Failing to earn as much as a woman expected when she commenced the relationship
    – Disrupting the feng shui of a house by having any male possessions inside
    – Interrupting a woman whilst reading
    – Asking anything of a woman

    In the second proposed change only women will be eligible to apply for protection orders. Department of Justice figures show that such a small proportion of male applicants ever get them, their eligibility may as well be formally dissolved. Detective Sergeant Neville Turncoat from the Auckland Crimes Against Women Squad applauded this change as a vote for common sense. From his broom-cupboard office in the old Sewage Treatment Building (which now houses the Male Police Division) he said “Everybody knows that men are bigger and more violent than women and that women are the good, kind backbone of our society who are only capable of violence when a man deserves it. It’s ridiculous to imagine a man feeling frightened of such benign beings so applications from males will inevitably be based on lies, insanity, and some male attempt to exercise power and control over women. And I’m not just saying that because of the recent Utterances Against Women Act that allows only supportive comments concerning women and feminist ideology.”

    Vicki Backstabber from the NZ Society for Gender Cleansing also supported the move. “It’s a quaint anacronism for modern governments to think that laws designed to protect women need be extended for men’s use as well. Modern definitions of gender equality, as ratified in Sweden by the UN Gender Equality Accord, don’t require men to be considered.”

    The third change is that protection order applications will only need to be taken directly to any Women Police Division Station where they will automatically come into force upon presentation. Chief Family Court Judge Petra Bouquet expressed concerns about this move because it may necessitate consideration of redundancy for several female Family Court judges (all male judges were recently dismissed as unsuitable and incapable of understanding women’s perspective). “However, it’s great that the government is prioritizing sound ethical principles in allowing women to protect themselves from the foul male underclass, and anyway I should be able to secure additional funding to ensure the entire female judiciary is retained.”

    Police Superintendent #73 Mary Manblamer of the Women Police Division (Pongaroa) added “Women who need to apply for protection orders will find it a much more comfortable process since all Women Police Division stations were moved to refurbished, plush new accommodation in each population centre. Only women are allowed in the Women Police Division stations so they can be confident of not having to endure the proximity of any men. Counsellors will be provided immediately to assist women with the wording of their applications, and applicants will then be able to choose from a variety of activities designed to help them heal from the trauma of having to relive their ordeals. Applicants can avail themselves of the massage, manicure, beauty therapy or any of the other services that are now routinely provided in Women Police Division stations, before enjoying coffee or stronger refreshments in the women’s only bar. Women can also feel reassured that the police representative who receives their application will be of high rank because women police officers are now automatically ranked as Superintendent. This ensures that male police don’t attempt their usual male power and control by thinking they have higher status to the women police.’ Superintendents don’t undertake any direct enforcement in the community, but they do the more important job of allocating and ordering lower-ranked staff to do that work.

    The fourth major change will ensure that, as soon as an application for a Protection Order is presented at the Women Police Division station, the respondent male will be immediately arrested and imprisoned. Special ‘Violence Against Women’ Courts each presided over by three Women’s Refuge staff will be convened in men’s prisons to enable imprisoned men to challenge their protection orders, but the cost to use these Courts will be very high and no legal aid will be available. Neville Manhater from the group ‘Men Support the Supremacy of Women’ expressed wholehearted agreement with automatic imprisonment of men. “Until now Protection Orders have been quite ineffective in providing women security from the extreme trauma when men breach orders, for example by waving when they see their children going past in a car. Counsellors constantly see the devastation such waving causes women and it’s long past time that a stop was put to this abuse.” Dr Manhater said his group wanted the new provisions extended to include automatic imprisonment of respondents’ male family members, friends and all men on the respondent’s street to ensure the applicant is protected from any unwanted male contact on behalf of the respondent. “Women have had to endure men’s imposition for far too long and the health effects are very serious from having to see men they are tired of seeing or their associates.’

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 2:25 pm

  55. Surely…being a practicing psychologist, who ‘counsels’ rape victims. It is completely inappropriate to be advocating such anti women and mysoginist views? Dangerous. You should be struck off Hans Laven if cannot do your job with blatant predujice and hatred.

    Comment by sam — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 4:37 pm

  56. Wake up sam.

    Just tonight, local TV went to bat for trans-sexuals who may have been offended by a TV advertisement that “may have” characterized trans-sexuals in a way not approved by parties unspecified.

    Ask yourself honestly if you would like to be characterized in the same way that men and boys are, day and night, every bloody day and night.

    We have had it drummed home for decades now how destructive this imagery is to self-esteem, yet no-one – not you, not the PM, not Mark Sainsbury, not any psychologist – has squeaked in speaking up for men and boys. Hans has spoken up for an entire profession that hides in a hole, while bully-girls like you try and shut him up.

    Shame. On. You.

    Comment by rc — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 5:44 pm

  57. rc,

    Bingo! Right on the money mate.


    There’s nothing in Hans’ post remotely hateful or prejudice.
    Like rc says, I think you need to wake up.
    Hans has written some really good political satire which you’ve obviously failed to recognize.
    If you were even slightly aware of the hatred men in NZ have been subjected to for decades now by that supremacist masquerading as humane movement – feminism, and it’s terrible impact on NZers you’d be praising Hans for his courage and compassion, not suggesting he be struck off.

    S.A.M. – Shamefully Anti Male

    Hans, thanks for a good laugh mate.

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 8:10 pm

  58. News just coming in…….

    An underground feminist hitsquad fronted by an anonymous poster naming themselves S.A.M. – Smash All Men surfaced today to lay claims of misogyny against a highly respected NZ Psychologist.
    Several rounds of raaaaaayyyyyppppp were heard being fired, and startled onlookers say they were bewildered seeing Sam shooting themselves in the foot.

    A spokesman for F.A.I.R. (Feminists Are Ignorant Retards) said this was not the first time a courageous outspoken Men’s Rights Activist had been targeted by a misandric hate group with links to S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men) and other International Feminist Terrorist organizations.

    S.A.M was heard yelling whilst hobbling away from the crime scene – “Neville makes me tingle – he’s a proper psycho, not like Hans who should be struck off!”
    However, Chief Mangina Pussyworshipper Neville Robotson was too busy dealing with mounting criticism of his controversial 1 in 4 women have been sexually abused claims to give comment.

    Femily Court Chief Judge BossForHer said he was deeeeeeply concerned and would ask for a commitee to be formed headed by the Right Hornyrabble Peter Dumb which would report back to him in 5 years time – he would then certainly act promptly and prudently upon the commitee’s recommendations.

    The Human Rights Association said they were too busy attending to upholding women’s right to everything under the sun under equal opportunity legislation to comment in depth, but desired to see Mr Levin castrated for public safety.

    Police are now on the look out for a red faced woman, limping badly, swearing incoherently and possibly dressed in butch female attire.

    Comment by Skeptic — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 8:45 pm

  59. @sam said

    Surely”¦being a practicing psychologist, who ‘counsels’ rape victims. It is completely inappropriate to be advocating such anti women and mysoginist views? Dangerous. You should be struck off Hans Laven if cannot do your job with blatant predujice and hatred.

    You are undoubtably able to quote directly from Hans’ words the “anti women and mysoginist views” claimed. You should do so now. You can also detail your own qualifications if you presume to judge the capacity of any professional.

    I’m a survivor of childhood rape by a woman. Would you like me to cite to you some of the bigotry and hatred and, more than once, actual violence, I have experienced at the hands of feminists merely for revealing that truth from my past. Would you like to hear of the experiences of male victims and victims of female rapists who have been laughed at and called liars by feminist run rape crisis services. Feminists do it IN THE FACES of actual victims.

    You hypocrite. Feminists have been responsible for institutionalising discrimination against countless victims for decades. They do it ONLY for reasons of gender ideology and doctrine. The blood on their hands – and yours if you bear that label – will NEVER be washed away.

    Comment by gwallan — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 10:45 pm

  60. Hans…addition to crimes listed. You may have forgotten.

    – Performing sexual acts in the absence of one’s female controller. This can be a capital crime.

    Comment by gwallan — Tue 3rd January 2012 @ 10:58 pm

  61. #55..mosy of the rape victims are full of shit anyway..manipulating their situations

    Comment by Ford — Wed 4th January 2012 @ 7:17 am

  62. #55..most of the rape victims are full of shit anyway..manipulating their situations

    Comment by Ford — Wed 4th January 2012 @ 7:18 am

  63. Sexual assault and rape cause serious harm to many and it is quite appropriate to treat them as serious crimes. Real domestic violence is also of serious concern and causes serious harm, more so when part of a pattern of domination and/or disinhibited through alcohol or drug abuse. I do not specialize in either area but when such matters arise I am confident that I deal with them sensitively, knowledgeably, supportively and with reasonable effectiveness as a helper.

    Unfortunately, when any of these crimes are committed by women against males they are often treated lightly. Even if one were to accept that women may experience more harm from these crimes than men do on average (for various reasons), I don’t believe any such difference is anywhere near the magnitude of difference we see in how male vs female victims are treated and how offenders against them are punished.

    My satirical piece on the possible future gender situation and the operation of protection orders highlighted the direction our society is heading under feminist domination. I have no misogyny and unless someone can point at something misogynist in my writing then claims of that nature amount to nothing but personal attack. Should anything I have written be reasonably able to be construed as misogynist I would probably apologize and remove it because that certainly has never been my intention. But criticizing our protection order legislation, other anti-male laws and the trends we are seeing under feminist demands certainly is my intention.

    Current protection order legislation is already a travesty of justice, seriously depriving people of civil rights fundamental to the functioning of cohesive civilization, and doing this in the absence of proof, good evidence or often any evidence beyond an applicant’s allegations. Such applications continue often to be strategies in custody or relationship property conflicts, or acts of revenge, or acts of self-justification in which applicants who have trashed their children’s family units defend their own ego by attributing all blame to the other parent for this. I expect, SAM, you will recognize this process in yourself.

    I have come across a case where a protection order was granted based on an affidavit that stated the respondent had never done anything violent but the applicant was worried because of his facial expression and the look in his eyes sometimes. I have come across several cases in which men were imprisoned for waving at their passing-by children after not being allowed to see them for months, and several others for sending birthday presents to their children; in each case there were no allegations that the father had ever been violent to the children. I have come across situations in which a woman has committed assault against a male partner / ex-partner who has never done the same, and the police have encouraged the woman to apply for a protection order. I have come across numerous cases in which men have called police because they have been assaulted and/or are being threatened with violence, but when the police come they tell the man to leave the house and they don’t prosecute the female offender.

    Political satire has always been an important way of highlighting injustice and foolishness. Feminists / femaleists would love to shut down any discussion or opinion that they don’t like. They don’t have the wisdom to recognize the fundamental importance of free speech, civil rights, legal protections against the power of the state, intact families, personal responsibility or many other goods, unless they think it will serve their own interests. I am honoured and pleased that my satire has provoked a vicious attack. Provoking emotional response is I think a basic defining quality of political satire and indeed of art generally.

    I question though why anyone who has no concern for the plight of men would monitor the MENZ site at all. This is after all a place for

    “news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health”.

    Feminist groups who run their own forums some of which promote blatant anti-male hate speech have long told men they should get together to discuss their own issues and to take responsibility for seeking political changes men might want. That this advice has been little more than abrogation of feminists’ responsibility for anyone but themselves and for the social damage they have caused is suggested by the fact that when men try to carry out the advice they are attacked, ridiculed, lied about and, if possible, damaged professionally and personally for their efforts.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 4th January 2012 @ 7:52 pm

  64. @Hans. I have a problem with your choice of words, i.e. the applicant’s allegations. Mainly because it would lead a reader to presume that the family court is a badly functioning criminal court – where allegations need to be supported by proof. The family court is a civil court that hears claims that seek a remedy. It is important that respondents, who are usually men and in particular self represented litigants understand that they are dealing with a different legal process when responding to a claim. I am not disagreeing with your perspective on the anal quality of the law, however If you are forced into dealing with the family court – and if you don’t the claim will probably succeed in your absence – you will not defeat the claim thinking that you all you need to do is proffer a defence. As to why certain people would monitor this site, one of the reasons is to see how far our legal understanding has developed, but it is only one of many reasons, not the least of which is identifying people who should be damaged for their involvement, contribution or assistance to what is effectively an open and visible resistance movement.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 5th January 2012 @ 11:42 am

  65. Down Under (#64): Interesting points and it is important that Family Court litigants don’t expect anything like the modicum of justice they might get in a criminal trial. I’m not sure that referring to an ‘applicant’s allegations’ would suggest to anyone that the Family Court functions as a criminal Court, but who knows? The Court does use the term ‘applicants’ who generally make allegations in support of their desired outcome.

    However, judges make ‘findings of fact’ based on the criterion ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. For those judges, indoctrinated as they are by seminars from feminist groups while men’s or fathers’ groups rarely get an audience, a woman’s claims to be at risk of violence from a man will generally be seen as true on the balance of probablities based on the feminists’ misleading propaganda (women=good, men=bad). I have come across cases in which the mother was proven by the father (through bank statements or other solid evidence) to have lied repeatedly in her evidence and there was no evidence the father had lied, yet the judge chose to believe everything else the mother said and to disbelieve the father. In this respect it seems that FC judges have almost unbridled, unaccountable power.

    It seems to me that protection orders are more like criminal sanctions than any civil remedy. Fundamental civil rights are removed from the respondent who is also ‘ordered’, essentially sentenced to a period of periodic detention at a feminist indoctrination centre. However, unlike criminal convictions the order can later be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions, as if the order amounted to proof of previous wrongdoing.

    How on earth any reasonable person can be comfortable with such travesty of justice is beyond me.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 5th January 2012 @ 5:05 pm

  66. Down Under (#64): By the way, I’m sorry to hear you have a problem. I have a mild problem with your choice of words in that respect. But, whatever gets you off…

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 5th January 2012 @ 5:06 pm

  67. Down Under and Hans, thank you both for your well laid out points. Although legally correct, I suggest that your analysis ignores human factors in decision making.

    Both interpretation of legislation and “finding of facts” are open to conscious abuse (aka prejudice and corruption)and subconscious influence and manipulation. It seems that these “judges” couldn’t reliably find real world facts, if they fell over them? Besides, they profit paramountly from confusion, its not just a joke.

    In this latter regard, many women’s groups presently seem to be more effective than men’s groups at gaining public sympathy. This is a 25 year tide and surely in the future, will pull the other way just as hard and dangerously for society.
    The Pernicious Effect of Emergency Removal in Child Protective Proceedings
    On an average day, police officers and child welfare caseworkers throughout the United
    States remove more than 700 children from the custody of their parents to protect them from
    alleged abuse or neglect.� These children are typically seized without warning from their
    homes or schools; subjected to intrusive interrogations, medical examinations, and/or strip
    searches; and forced to live in foster homes or group residences while the legal system sorts
    out their future.� Some of these �emergency removals� are preauthorized by judges in ex
    parte proceedings similar to those for obtaining a search warrant; others are effected solely
    on the authority of the law enforcement or child welfare agency conducting the removal.

    Removals can be terrifying experiences for children and families. Often they occur at
    night. Parents have little or no time to prepare children for separation. The officials conducting
    the removal, as well as the adults supervising the placement, are usually complete strangers
    to the child. Children are thrust into alien environs and separated from parents, siblings,
    and all else familiar with little if any, idea of why they have been taken there.

    FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 42 No. 3, July 2004 pages 540-553
    2004 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

    A former caseworker described her experience at New York City�s Emergency Children�s
    Services (ECS), where 30 to 40 children were brought each night following removals while
    placements for them were located:
    When I first came to ECS, I tried to reach out to all the children who were crying or sitting alone,
    shocked, and terrified. It was easier with the little ones, because 1 could hug them and they would
    immediately respond. . . . [The people who make removal decisions] don�t see a child having a
    panic attack at 3 a.m. because he is suddenly alone in the world, or slamming his head against a
    wall out of protest and desperation.
    The rising use of emergency removal might be justified if it were necessary to protect
    children from imminent danger.� In addition, a certain number of false positives can be expected from any enforcement scheme. Yet, the number
    of such errors that actually occur is alarmingly large. According to statistics published by the
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), more than 100,000 children who
    were removed in 2001-more than one in three-were later found not to have been maltreated
    at all.� That is only the tip of the iceberg. Because definitions of maltreatment are
    extremely broad and substantiation standards it can be reasonably assumed that a significant
    number of other children who are found maltreated, and for whom perhaps some
    intervention-short of removal-is warranted, are nonetheless removed on an emergency
    basis. Consider the following actual examples:�
    Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworkers remove twin 4-year-old boys after their mother
    admits to inflicting two marks on the back of one boy�s thigh with a belt and to occasionally
    using this method to discipline the boys. The mother is a religiously devout, stably employed
    mother of four healthy and happy children; no other issues of abuse or neglect exist or are
    CPS caseworkers remove a 3-week-old baby girl after her teenage parents get into a loud argument
    that culminates in the mother striking the father twice with her hands. During the altercation,
    the infant lies safely in a crib in another room, unharmed. Although there is no evidence of
    any previous physical violence, CPS investigators express concern about the couple�s history of
    engaging in loud arguments, the mother�s diagnosis of depression, and the fact that the mother
    remains on probation for possession of marijuana while admitting that she still continues to use
    the drug occasionally.
    Although some state intervention may have been appropriate in these cases, it is difficult to
    discern any immediate danger to the children warranting drastic protective action.
    What accounts for the large and growing number of unnecessary removals? Although this
    is a complex question, an important
    factor appears to be the rise within child welfare practice of �defensive social work.� This
    refers to the tendency of CPS personnel, first identified in the early 1980s, to base removal
    decisions on fear-fear of job discipline, fear of civil (and even criminal) liability, and especially
    fear of adverse publicity resulting from the death of a child left with or returned to his
    biological parents.� Defensive social work has flourished in the past 20 years, fuelled by the
    news media�s appetite for sensational child maltreatment stories as well as by laws that purposely
    magnify the public visibility of child maltreatment fatalities and near fatalities.� This
    has led to a series of removal stampedes or �foster care panics,� in which thousands of children
    have been swept up by child welfare authorities in the aftermath of high-profile child
    fatalities. During such stampedes, the very creed of the government�s action-often
    expressed as �erring on the side of safety�-invites overreaching in the name of the greater

    What is forgotten or ignored during removal stampedes, however, and more generally in
    modern child welfare practice, is the range and extent of harm that can result from unnecessary
    removals. Members of affected families may suffer enduring harm psychologically,
    financially, and in countless other ways, from the stresses of removal and its aftermath (leading
    to divorce, job loss, etc.).

    Removed children, moreover, are not necessarily safer in their
    new placements. Rates of abuse and neglect, including fatal abuse and neglect, are significantly
    higher in foster care than in the general population .

    But it gets even worse. Once a child is removed, a variety of factors converge to make it very difficult for parents to ever get the child back.

    Although these human factors in decision making have been well documented in academic literature, there seems to be a gaping BLIND spot on the part of NZ “judges”.

    Since the familycaught started praying on families, I am not aware of even mention of human factors in decision making, in any law conference papers through this period, in NZ. (Only partial exception Justice Mahon in his commission of enquiry report on Air NZ programming their plane to land on Mt Erebus.)

    Human factors are analysed carefully, in all aeroplance crashes. A recent Air France crash into sea off South America resulted from instrument failure (icing of pitot tubes while flying through thunderstorm clouds) and in the confusion, the pilot concentrated on the instruments and forgot to maintain flying speed and conditions. In just over 2 minutes, the plane had fallen from 10,000 metres into the sea, killing all on board.

    Household appliance human interface design is based on careful analysis of human factors, particularly for safety issues. It is applied all around us in everyday life.

    Thus the apparent ignorance of our legal workers seems to reflect lack of professional approach to their employment task and respect for their customers, Government included.

    Please note that Paul Chill in a USA Professor of Law and his work is readily accessible through the NZ library system. Thus our “judges” have no excuse for their ignorance.

    Similarly, our? “judges” seem to be lacking awareness of child neglect and injury statistics, from NZ and also from other similar societies. They are swayed toward “safety” – ie if the case should blow up in public, their role will “appear” conservative and “safe”.

    However, if you hold child neglect and injury statistics in one hand and a familycaught “judgement” in the other – then I suggest that way more than half of their judgements are downright dangerous (physically and mentally) for our children!!!!! (Similarly, child neglect and injury statistics have not been relevantly or usefully mentioned in any NZ law conference papers. This gives the appearance that child safety is nowhere near the priorities of these “workers”.

    Thus, our task is to educate public and media about the actual dangers (physically and mentally ie neglect) to children in NZ and hope that eventually “judges” (or are they just clowns?) will be forced to learn this information too. As Hans noted, they are not interested to learn from men in our society.

    Best regards, MurrayBacon – respectful, considerate and safe axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 5th January 2012 @ 10:43 pm

  68. Bruce S points out that the public fail to take interest, when they are presented with confusing information. We must be clear, clarify and explain and make the issues as human faced as Women’s Refuge already do:

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 5th January 2012 @ 11:03 pm

  69. OMG, and I thought my writing in reply #54 was satirical fiction! Already much of it is becoming reality, as can be seen by the latest proposals in Australia:

    Thanks to Skeptic for providing this reference to MENZ

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 14th January 2012 @ 8:00 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