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

NZ Girls Gender Advantage

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 4:11 pm Mon 14th March 2011

Study: NZ best Commonwealth country for girls

The Royal Commonwealth Society (RCS) study showed there was a greater level of gender equality in New Zealand than any other country in the Commonwealth – which has 54 member countries with a total population of nearly two billion.

New Zealand’s Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Judy McGregor, said the research results were “wonderful” news for the country but added there was still room for improvement. “We are leaders in gender equality but we can’t sit on our laurels,” Dr McGregor said.

UPDATE 17 March

This Report was discussed on Back Benches 16 March – Note the claim of one in three women being victims of domestic violence from Green MP, Sue Kedgley.


  1. Any competetion where Barbados, Trinidad&Tobago and Dominica & the Seychelles come 2nd, 3rd and 4th, doesn’t sound like a competition I want to win.

    OT: Radio Hauraki are have a “Win A Wanker” competition.
    Because-“If he’s a bloke you can guarantee he’s a wanker.
    There’s comment section if you’d like to say something.

    Comment by womble — Mon 14th March 2011 @ 6:43 pm

  2. Theres also a “Rate this Page”, thumbs up / thumbs down button if you’re feeling lazy.

    Comment by womble — Mon 14th March 2011 @ 7:38 pm

  3. I wonder how our boys are doing against other commonwealth countries – there’s no mention of them at all.

    Comment by yeah right — Mon 14th March 2011 @ 7:50 pm

  4. I noticed that news report; thanks for referring MENZ to it Scrap. It’s another unbelievable example of feminist one-eyed self-centredness.

    One of the indicators they used was ‘life expectancy at birth’. Well, yes it’s good news if women live longer in NZ than in other countries, but surely we could have expected some mention that women already live around five years longer than men on average? The article may as well claim that NZ is the best country for billionaires to live in but they still require a lot more money before they are equal to poor people.

    The statistic about women earning 72% of what men do is misleading. This figure is inconsistent with other published figures suggesting women earn 88% of what men earn in NZ. It depends entirely on how the figures are arrived at. Neither of these figures will give a realistic picture of women’s income because they won’t take into account the 50% or more of men’s earnings and assets that women are paid ostensibly for their homemaking work (both/either directly from their male partners or through relationship property laws), or the so-called ‘child support’ over and above what children actually cost that is stolen from men to pay women for the same work (which they usually do against the wishes of the men who are forced to pay them). If those calculations were included women would probably be shown to earn considerably more than men on average. Come on feminists, you can’t have it both ways, getting paid for homemaking work but then pretending you weren’t so you can claim ongoing disadvantaged status and still demand more.

    And Dr Judy McGregor, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner (who knew we had one of those?), you are correct in reminding us there is still a lot to be done to achieve gender equality in employment. We won’t have it until women make up half the workplace deaths each year (currently they contribute exactly 0% most years but occasionally they reach 1%), half the workplace serious injuries, half the most dangerous, dirty, body-wrecking, uncomfortable jobs required for the infrastructure of our lifestyle, half the bullets taken on the front lines in the armed forces, etc, so yes, there’s a long way to go yet! Why is it though, Dr McGregor, that you see equality as only involving the privileged, prestigious aspects of employment?

    Last but not least, we learn that the Commonwealth this year is celebrating the important role that women now play as ‘agents of change’, and what more could be achieved if women were able to play an even larger role. Yes indeed, we look forward to:
    (i) increases on the 60% of families that are trashed before children reach adulthood,
    (ii) increases on the hundreds of thousands of women on the DPB raising children with limited or no father influence,
    (iii) increasing the extent to which laws and their administration treat men as second class citizens and/or slaves in the service of women,
    (iv) increasing encouragement of false allegations against men and removal of legal defences against such false allegations,
    (v) increasing numbers of men in prison for increasing lengths of time especially for crimes that offend women,
    (vi) increasing the reliability and privilege of the pussy pass when it comes to female offenders,
    (vii) increasing community delinquency, violence and other crime because ‘male’ ways of managing and disciplining children are further demonized and made illegal,
    (viii) decreasing civil rights such as free speech that women consider to be politically incorrect,
    (ix) increasing the extent to which women’s preferences are forced on men regarding values, morals and activities.

    I’m sure we could fill more pages with the great things in store for us as feminism increases its influence in our society. I invite others to give some thought to what else we can expect. Go on, add to my list and increase our joyous anticipation.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 12:09 am

  5. If feminism increases its influence on our society, there won’t be any society – for all intents and purposes, there already isn’t.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 4:00 am

  6. Thanks Hans for spelling out these matters.
    I agree entirely.
    You ask for additions to your list.
    Well, equal reproductive rights would be congruent too.
    The right to wave responsibility for a child up to the time a woman is allowed to abort would be fair.

    As would equal provision in dollar terms of healthcare provided by taxpayer’s dollars.
    After all it’s men who through dint of working more stressful occupations earn more and hence pay the bulk of income tax. Who amongst the fairminded has a problem with getting a fair share of government services for taxes they pay?
    Lack of fair share of government health services leads to premature death for men, so men don’t live as long in retirement either.
    So men miss out as taxpayers there too.

    Equal numbers of male teachers would also go some way to dismantling our terribly feminized education system which is failing many boys. The stats give the picture as does increasing amounts of anecdotal evidence. No need to labor the point here. It’s well researched and recorded.
    Then there’s the wimminz department and god knows how many other quangos which exist for women only.
    Women’s studies programs and special grants for women only.

    And supporting it all of there’s the women are more valuable than men attitude which suffuses massive amounts of NZers subliminal thinking leading to the above.
    New Zealand men need more than anything to have such thinking change, to be EQUALLY valued by the likes of Dr Judy McGregor.
    What’s the bet she’s just another unconscious feminist though and won’t take action on any of the areas Hans,I and others mention?

    However, if she remains true to feminist form as we’ve witnessed over recent decades we can expect absolutely nothing.
    No reason to be disconsolate though.
    Sad though as I see the staunch callous feminist indifference leading to a quickening and inexorable massive backlash as increasing numbers of men wake up to the fact that in feminist cultures men are the new niggers. Perhaps not one massive backlash, but a series of waves of social pressure caused by a combination of male separatism (consciously chosen slacker culture – why bother investing yourself in a culture that despises you?) and defiant subversion.

    I say this because I read widely and sense men of all ages, but especially the more thinking young men are quietly and not so quietly disengaging in various ways from the prevailing feminist culture and there is a brooding and building seething resentment about the raw deal they are getting and increasingly gaining awareness of as the meme of male disposability spreads unstoppable due to modern day information technology. As one young Men’s Rights Activist put it recently the Internet and smartphone technology in it’s ability to circumvent mass media programming (and hence feminist-chivalrous propaganda) IS the Men’s Rights Movement.

    Which leads me to another thought about information technology.
    The bread and circuses of 24/7 media entertainment and sports (including hook up sex), drugs of all sorts(legal and illicit)and X Box/virtual web existence won’t hold back the dam of gender apartheid realization in men for ever.
    I’m thankful I moved away and don’t live in a western feminist dominated country at present where I fear the lid is sure to come off sooner or later.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 4:19 am

  7. My coment:
    “Plenty of women wankers! I bet you guys haven’t got the balls to name any female candidates! I would nominate Sue Bradford for a starter. Up for it?? or is Hauraki run by Wankers?”

    Comment by John Brett — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 7:26 am

  8. Come to think of it, it’s difficult to see anything positive for society generally that has been achieved so far by women’s increased roles and power, apart from gains and privileges for women themselves. Can anyone think of any? Be fair minded here please, there must be some things.

    I guess one generally positive thing is that women’s potential contribution to commerce and industry is no longer wasted through restrictions based on superstitious past beliefs that they are not capable of such roles. Even taking into account the downside costs of this change (e.g. young children spending long periods in child care centres), it is probably beneficial to society.

    Any others?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 9:50 am

  9. Yes, I’m sure you are right in seeing change in the wind. But that wind is little more than a breeze and with so many laws and institutions already subverted to feminist preference any real gains for men are far off. Also, we haven’t yet seen a renewed feminist onslaught which will happen as soon as real progress starts to become evident for men’s rights. At present, feminist advantage is so secure that feminists can sit back and view the men’s movement with ridicule and amusement.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 9:58 am

  10. I sent the following to our esteemed Commissioner for Equal Employment Opportunities. From experience, I expect a standard fob-off response that doesn’t address the issues at all. Never mind, I’m confident that drawing influential people’s attention to truth has led to positive changes in their attitudes and statements and will continue to do so.

    Dear Dr McGregor

    You were quoted in a recent news article entitled “Study: NZ best Commonwealth country for girls” ( as stating there is still a lot to be done to achieve gender equality in employment. I can only agree with you. We won’t have gender equality in employment until women make up half the workplace deaths each year (currently they contribute exactly 0% most years but occasionally they reach 1%), half the workplace serious injuries, half the most dangerous, dirty, body-wrecking, uncomfortable jobs required for the infrastructure of our lifestyle, half the bullets taken on the front lines in the armed forces, etc, so yes, there’s a long way to go yet! Why is it though, Dr McGregor, that you see equality as only involving the privileged, prestigious aspects of employment?

    Yours faithfully

    Hans Laven

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 10:24 am

  11. Well done men, some great comments on the Hauraki site. The radio station and the public can be left in no doubt that tolerance for male denigration is fast running out.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 10:26 am

  12. Hans,
    You say –

    At present, feminist advantage is so secure that feminists can sit back and view the men’s movement with ridicule and amusement.

    I don’t doubt that’s happening. Feminists were never the brightest buttons! Nor were they even empowered without chivalrous Male enablers. However I have a slightly different take on matters. I see men kind of collectively like the guy who’s withdrawn, ‘gone into his cave’ so to speak, only the difference is that in there he isn’t alone he’s meeting others and sharing views and strategy. Storm clouds are gathering. More and more men are disengaging from the feminist paradigm and coming to recognize the coalition of feminists (mostly women)and chivalric male leaders as the problem which blocks their path to long overdue human rights for men.
    As the tension builds something has to give, and if it is men giving up even more human rights it will only inspire more male revolt.
    The genie is out of the bottle.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 10:28 am

  13. Good encouragement Skeptic, thanks. I laughed at the buttons thing, and I thank you for the positive attitude it entails.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 10:37 am

  14. Your welcome and thanks for the letter to the Commissioner.
    I keep my spirits up by visiting here daily.
    Some of the rhetoric is over the top, but the general thrust is spot on in my view. And the analysis of our situation is top notch.
    I recommend the site to folks who’ll be able to listen in to cutting edge Men’s Rights critical thinkers like Zed there.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 10:46 am

  15. I’m really impressed at the response.
    Thank you guys.

    (Hauraki have started moderating / deleting comments now.)

    Comment by womble — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 12:51 pm

  16. They’ve “declared a winner” ie Ended the competition!
    (after just 4 days and 6 entries)

    PS Skeptic, I just loved your closing comment..

    “Now I’m off for that delicious Tui stubby whilst listening to”

    Comment by womble — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 2:48 pm

  17. Well if there is room for improvement and we cant sit on our laurels as ms mcgregor states.

    Fact that 30-40% of Men will never earn enough income to attract a life partner or get married.

    Whats being done to help Men get better education ie mens specific programmes or mens specific mental health. 75% of graduates will be women withen 10 years and none want to marry down yet advocate for tolerance and acceptance.

    Comment by dan — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 4:03 pm

  18. Thanks womble.

    Hi Dan, I don’t feel optimistic about the happiness of future generations of women if trends continue.
    I agree none seem keen to marry down, but there’s worse than that in store for them.
    Fewer and fewer men want to marry ‘up’ to someone vested with the social power to strip them of relationship, home, children and sanity on a hypergamous whim either.
    The Genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
    I suppose it’s fair to say that many men still don’t know of the term Men’s Rights Activist, let alone identify with it.
    However on a visceral, day to day level they aren’t so desensitized as to be oblivious to the obvious misandric nature of current relationship and family law.

    Quote for the day seen at “The Ghost nation” –

    ‘You can judge a woman by how she treats a man who will do nothing for her.’


    Comment by Skep — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 5:01 pm

  19. Come to think of it, it’s difficult to see anything positive for society generally that has been achieved so far by women’s increased roles and power, apart from gains and privileges for women themselves. Can anyone think of any?

    Definitely. And it’s a beauty.

    Men need no longer believe they owe women anything any more.

    Gone are the days where we should get married, have their children, work our lives away supporting the ungrateful creeps and then quietly die as they eat us away from the inside.

    We can now forget about dedicating ourselves to a lifelong career paying all the bills supporting a household and lifestyle that have nothing to do with us and our tastes.

    The law may still be very much in the Dark Ages, but the blinkers – and gloves – are now off, and can never be put back on.

    Forget women, forget families and forget female relationships. They are all but illegal anyway. We stand at the beginning of a journey through completely uncharted territory, but looking back over where we’ve come from, it’s just got to get better.

    Comment by yeah right — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 7:56 pm

  20. More than anything feminism has exposed womens’ integrity.

    Comment by gwallan — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 8:05 pm

  21. thanks “yeah right” and “gwallan”, good thoughts

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 8:24 pm

  22. Having worked in jobs with both men and women over the years I can definitely say this.
    Wherever I’ve worked that’s been heavily female influenced has been cushier.
    That’s a bonus of sorts.
    Although I have to also say it’s a two edged sword as I have to live with the distinctly distasteful impression that generally compared to men women are by their very nature slackers.
    Slackers who once they start feeding off men without reciprocation become parasites.
    As such I think an awful lot of women overplay how much they actually do in a typical day.
    Bear in mind I’ve been a stay at home Dad and worked in female dominated professions for several decades now.
    I’m sure there are some very hard working women around, but I won’t deny my life’s experience either.

    Many women seem to think they can revel in victory at men’s expense.
    But there’s a perfect storm brewing which is going to turn their shortsighted lives upside down.
    Part of it will be caused their unbridled narcissism unleashed for decades now in wave after wave of bloated aggressive entitlement feminists duplicitously playing the victim card over and over – aided and abetted by the pandering to of chivalric male leaders.
    The male leaders succeed sexually with women by giving them what they demand, even though like spoilt children it means there’s less to give to those who need it most – disenfranchised males. It’s a classic John and Ho arrangement where alpha males sell their lower status brothers down the river for pussy.
    And don’t be suckered in for a moment by that old feminist shiboleth that it isn’t a zero sum game of one sex winning out over the other.
    That’s claptrap designed to disguise that fact that every society only has a finite amount of resources to share out – and as women being the (over)protected sex get the bigger piece of the health, welfare, education pie……and men the disposable sex then?
    As seems to be the case and women become more and more empowered than men – more credentialed than men, out earning men, healthier than men with burgeoning support for their well-being only – as men get left behind I see the storm clouds gathering. Indeed comments here reflect such as men mention who will women hypergamous by nature have to marry up to?
    And then there’s the male pill not far away.
    The social nuclear bomb which ushers in a completely new era of relations between the sexes.
    So I see a trend already happening which will surely only quicken in the not too distant future where MASSES of men are slackening off, stepping out of sex role harness (provider/protector and highly resistant to co-habitation and marriage, let alone parenthood on current feminist terms take the safe, reversible soon to be easily available male birth control pill and bide their time until it becomes socially and legally safe to give women what they want – partnership and children.
    You see, the female birth control pill was only one half of the sexual revolution.
    It, along with other technologies has’s given women the upper hand – temporarily.
    The upper hand which they could have put to good use building social capital by helping out men. But as we well know that’s an opportunity most women giddy with their new freedoms have squandered in a bath of self congratulation and misguided misandry.
    And wow! I’ve just realized something!
    I’ve swung 180 degrees myself from not so very long ago envying modernized westernized women who I see as the most privileged large identifiable group of people to have ever existed in history to now thinking “Jesus, I’m glad I’m not a young woman these days.
    They don’t know what’s going to hit them in a few years time”

    A perfect storm indeed.

    Yes times are disgustingly tough for men, but as you can see I have reason to be far, far from pessimistic.
    And the stupid vainglorious crowing feminists stupidly thought it was the end of men!
    Ha! What idiots! parading such views in public will come back to haunt them mark my words.
    Apparently they didn’t realize that the sex which contains Einstein, Beethoven, George Washington, Charles Darwin and many other geniuses would one day work out their own sexual revolution.

    Now I’m off for a nice cup of tea and some more slacking.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 9:20 pm

  23. When I see posts from you more experienced guys saying things like “I sent this to The Commissioner For Equal Opportunities”.. or “The Minister for Social Development”… or “The Equity Development Spokesperson for the Disadvantaged”… etc etc

    I can’t help thinking..
    1) How the hell do you find an email address for some obscure government chairwarmer?
    2) What’s the email address? Because I’d like to give them my opinion too!

    Comment by womble — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 9:24 pm

  24. Hi womble: Send email to [email protected] and put “To Dr Judy McGregor” in the subject line.

    In general, just doing a NZ internet search on the name of the person, their position or their organization will lead you to that organization’s page which will provide “contact details” or some such.

    Go well!

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 15th March 2011 @ 10:21 pm

  25. Women on the front-lines in warfare? What a joke. How many women do you know who can’t even kill a spider? But seriously, I think EVERY feminist should be sent into war, and experience what it is like to get shot at for your country, have your limbs blown off by mines, have your lungs ripped to bits by gas, and spend years in POW camps being raped and tortured, after all, they wanted equal rights didn’t they?

    And then of course to make it equal, for the ones who survive, lets make sure we all rip them off if they ever come home by divorcing them and taking half of what they owned while they were away fighting, fleece them for child support for kids they can’t look after anymore, and leave them to live out the rest of their pitiful life in a wheelchair.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 16th March 2011 @ 3:08 pm

  26. Yeah, feminists in general have been pretty stupid in what they wanted. A classic example is the desire of women to enter the workforce. Effectively they almost doubled the amount of labour available to employers. Basic economics and a bit of common sense should have told them what would happen. They halved the wage rate.

    Yes that’s right, men and women today earn HALF (when adjusted for inflation) of what they did before women entered the workforce on mass.

    So effectively it now takes 2 people to earn what one did in the past. Result: Most women are now FORCED to work a job, to have enough money to live, even if they are in a relationship. The days of a man being able to provide for them are gone.

    So where does the attitude come from that in the 1950s women were somehow “oppressed” and forced into “servitude” for men? The reality is that they had considerably more freedom then than they do now. It was men who were oppressed in the 1950s, forced into jobs they hated, injured and killed in workplaces that were dangerous, and forced to sacrifice their health and their lives to provide for their families. Women simply looked after the children and the home, and had a very safe and free existence by comparison.

    The average women is now far worse off than she ever was before feminism took hold. Many of them will never experience a normal healthy relationship, or having children, partly because men have clicked onto what is going on and are refusing to be a part of it. The funny thing is that increasingly WOMEN are starting to have a problem with feminism, and feminist ideas as well.

    There is one bonus though, because feminists don’t value having kids, at least we know that eventually, they will die off, hopefully they don’t take the rest of Western Civilization with them.

    Comment by Mr. Anonymous — Wed 16th March 2011 @ 4:22 pm

  27. Fantastic letter Hans.
    Concise, hard-hitting and no nonsense straight to the point.
    The other day I came across a comment at The Spearhead which struck me as sage food for thought.
    The author said if you write to some feminist (as this Dr McGregor probably is), they’ll likely read your letter through their feminist ideological filter and fob it off.
    I can relate to that from experience of writing to NZ Human Rights Commission and Ministry of Health for example.
    However, he added that if at all possible he prefers to write to the person or body ABOVE that feminist outlining the feminist’s position, and asking “Do you endorse their view/policy?”
    Apparently he’d had some success with that approach.
    I can’t say how effective that would be yet.
    But I will be trying that approach in future as I can easily imagine it will achieve a couple of things.
    I envisage it will on some occasions result in the feminist being challenged and possibly even sacked for misandric bigotry and hence dereliction of duty to the public.
    It will put the overarching authority on notice that their organization’s practices are effectively on misandry watch too.
    I think that it may therefore be a powerful way to apply MRA pressure during these recessionary times when jobs are less abundant and people anxious to remain in good favor with their employers and employers also keen to remain in good favor with their clients.
    Your thoughts?

    Comment by Skep — Wed 16th March 2011 @ 6:46 pm

  28. Sounds a good idea. But two things come to mind. Firstly, it could be recognized as a manipulative ploy and that could harden the senior person against seeing merit in your points. Secondly, in most cases it’s unlikely you will get an answer at all to your question; organizations usually just send out formulaic statements describing their policy. The senior person is likely simply to pass your letter on to the person concerned to reply, perhaps writing to inform you of this. Perhaps the strategy you outline could appear more genuine and have more impact if you write first to the person you mainly wish to reach, then when you get an avoidant, fob-off response or no response, write to someone above them with a copy of the correspondence to date, asking them to ensure your initial questions are answered and if they endorse etc.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 16th March 2011 @ 8:18 pm

  29. Ahhh. I always thought you guys had a secret list of important peoples contact details. (kinda seriously)

    I did a quick google search for “” heres what I’ve found…
    Julie Watson email address = [email protected]
    Gilbert Wong email address = [email protected]
    Kat Ryan email address = [email protected]

    The pattern is… (firstname)(initial)
    The only exception I found.. (and she’s a temp)
    Dr Katie Evans, email address = [email protected]

    And HERE
    At the bottom of page 55

    Dr Judy McGregor
    EEO Commissioner
    Human Rights Commision
    PO Box 12311 Thorndon
    Wellington, New Zealand

    Ph: 64 4 496 9770
    Email: [email protected]

    It’s 4 years old, but it looks like it should be a valid email address… If you want to bypass all that silly bureaucracy and send a message directly to the lady woman herself..
    I’ll be writing one tomorrow. (it’s getting late now..)

    And this is just a guess…
    But I think her home phone number is either
    04-938 0995 or 04-476 0068 if you want to call her for a chat. 😉

    Comment by womble — Thu 17th March 2011 @ 12:11 am

  30. I agree with what has been said above. I’m currently at University and females outnumber males by a long shot yet there are over 20 scholarships for females only with none for males. This is probably because no one has thought of creating a scholarship for males only but that is what I intend to do once I have a stable job. If they refuse me then I will most definitely report them on the grounds of sexism.

    Comment by Robert Parker — Thu 17th March 2011 @ 4:19 pm

  31. I expect that in an advanced civilisation such as Japan, second – no third – largest economy in the world, women are an equal and fair proporation of specialists and technicions currently putting themselves at extreme and real risk, fighting to contain nuclear meltdown and radiation disaster?
    No wait – they’re too busy buying ‘hello kitty’ products in downtown Tokyo.

    Comment by One man's Perspective — Thu 17th March 2011 @ 7:20 pm

  32. Good on you Robert, we look forward to hearing what happened. We could take bets; my money is on the university refusing the male only scholarship and offering false claims as justification.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 17th March 2011 @ 7:35 pm

  33. Hi Robert,

    I put forward a men’s programme in Universities a few years ago. I learned it wouldn’t happen until connected to the university [basically students) men became interested in studying men.

    Gosh, there’s so many male students who want this and more that it needs support. Please let us know how you go and please ask for assistance when needed.

    Comment by julie — Thu 17th March 2011 @ 9:04 pm

  34. Mind you, they look to be scrapping women’s studies so men’s studies aren’t needed, (guessing)…..

    But still, I am interested in scholarships and I bet others are too.

    Comment by julie — Thu 17th March 2011 @ 9:08 pm

  35. Julie said – Mind you, they look to be scrapping women’s studies so men’s studies aren’t needed …

    Men’s Studies are still necessary. The need for Women’s Studies were never dependent upon Men’s Studies being available and so the need for Men’s Studies isn’t dependent upon whether or not there are Women’s Studies available.

    Comment by Wayne — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 9:00 am

  36. Mind you, they look to be scrapping women’s studies so men’s studies aren’t needed

    What nonsense. A quick search of NZ universities show they all still provide sexist women-focused courses without a course focusing on men anywhere in sight. Auckland and Massey still provide “women’s studies”, Otago provides “feminist theory”, Waikato and Victoria provide “womens and gender studies” that upon further reading seem to be simply women’s studies given another name, and Canterbury provides “gender studies” that include papers such as “Heroines in History” but no paper that focuses on men.

    Changing the name of courses in feminist ideology will not change their basic nature, and there is more need than ever for education about the men’s movement, men’s issues and plight, and increasing research that contradicts feminist propaganda.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 9:18 am

  37. And there is even a “Women’s Studies Association New Zealand” that describes itself as “a feminist organisation formed to promote radical social change through the medium of women’s studies“. It publishes a journal twice a year (that it describes as “essential reading for academics with an interest in gender issues”, newsletters three times per year and holds regular conferences. It claims to be independent of any institution but I note its journal editor Dr Ann Weatherall is a lecturer at Victoria, and one of its conveners is Lesley Hall, acting programme director of Gender and Women’s Studies at the School of Education Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, so I bet we taxpayers are paying for the Association’s activities in various ways. I guess the School of Education Studies produces teachers for NZ schools, ensuring that feminist indoctrination of our children continues apace.

    Feminism is an ideology of female supremacy. Feminist forces are alive, kicking, plotting, indoctrinating our children and misleading our decision makers. They simply ignore the men’s movement, research or rational argument that questions their preferred “women=oppressed and good, men=oppressors and bad” religion. The infusion of anti-male propaganda into western beliefs is broad and thorough. What improvement we are seeing in general awareness of feminist falsehood and abuse of men is unlikely to result in any improvement for men’s welfare for centuries unless men become a whole lot more active.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 10:02 am

  38. I came across a good example just recently of femi-centric attitudes. Most of us have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by them that we are not even consciously aware when they affect our thoughts.

    The situation was a small group of female and male mental health professionals whom I overheard discussing a young adult male who suffered from mental ill-health. He had run away from his family home even though this made him homeless. One of the mental health professionals had talked to his family and learned that the man had run away after being confronted by a female family member about not tidying up after himself in the house. He was returned to the family home after being counselled to tidy up after himself, but he quickly ran away again. The mental health professional informed the others that he ran away because he didn’t like being told to tidy up after himself. The other professionals nodded understandingly.

    What’s wrong with this picture, and why did I describe it as femi-centric?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 10:44 am

  39. Thank you Hans for this important information.
    Information is power and as such will remain on this website as a valuable who’s who of feminist academic programs to avoid and axe entirely.
    The situation you describe is no doubt accurate and grimly misandric.
    However, I hasten to add it is even worse than you describe.
    I say that because the fact is there are MANY more courses of tertiary study which make no reference to feminism at all in their titles, and little or no mention of feminism in their outlines.

    They are spread throughout the humanities and arts degrees especially in ALL NZ Universities and technical colleges.

    A classic example would be Neville Roberts of Waikato University who the unwitting would think teaches ‘social psychology’.
    Indeed he does teach social psychology – on the surface.
    However step into any of his classrooms and it quickly becomes crystal clear he’s teaching feminist social psychology (sic).

    I imagine knowledge of this phenomenon of feminist capture of academia is becoming fairly widespread amongst males due to the information technology we have today – facebook, twitter etc.
    I think it may even be one of the reasons for falling numbers of males in Universities – that males are quietly opting out of going to University in favor of trade schools and other life paths – in effect going their own way as part of the ghost nationMGTOW.

    For someone with a bit of spare time to donate to the cause of Men’s Rights Activism, and is looking for a project to take on to engage in the struggle I imagine it would be fairly simple and free to set up a facebook page with information on courses of study that are feminist in nature.
    They could even do it safely by remaining anonymous.
    People could then simply add to that page adding more information and links as time went by to keep it current with additional course information, photos, lecture notes etc.
    The page editor would have discretionary power to block feminist trolls by simply deleting them as ‘friends’ of the site thereby fire-walling them.
    It would in effect be a wikipedia or wikileaks of what courses to boycott.

    Your thoughts people?

    Comment by Skeptik — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 11:17 am

  40. Hi Wayne, we have started forming group projects and it’s going to help the community. I think i have the kind of personality where I minimise our affect so I don’t know much about selling the idea men get involved.

    Anyways, we need you to come on board of a project and I hope you accept. Will you work in a group that wants to progress – all expenses paid.

    Comment by julie — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 1:35 pm

  41. Hans, what are you going to do about this?

    Or are you just going to run me down because I am a woman.

    I love Skeptic, but my God, I hope I don’t meet him. And that goes for you too. Words are all good but someone has to do the work and to be honest, just because you men are Psychologists etc doesn’t make you better than everyone else or even a voice for anyone.

    What exactly have you ever done?
    BTW, There is a number of us wanting to hear experience.

    Comment by julie — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 1:44 pm

  42. Julie you say –

    I love Skeptic, but my God, I hope I don’t meet him. And that goes for you too. Words are all good but someone has to do the work and to be honest, just because you men are Psychologists etc doesn’t make you better than everyone else or even a voice for anyone.

    My response – we don’t need another senseless shit test.
    We’re flat out doing WORK to promote Men’s Rights.
    To say otherwise is dumb.
    I expect better from you than that.

    Comment by Skeptik — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 1:50 pm

  43. Yep, you Skeptic and Hans are great men What else can I SAY.

    YAY, Fantastic… awesome.

    Comment by julie — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 3:32 pm

  44. Are you the same Julie who was going to leave this board to the men a week or two back?

    If so, why would anyone take you seriously to get anything done? Even you don’t take any notice of what you say!

    Comment by yeah right — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 3:36 pm

  45. I know how we should respect online men and their words .Yay, Awesome, Fantastic”¦ awesome.

    Please tell then how awesome they are.

    Comment by julie — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 3:41 pm

  46. Hi Yeah Right.

    That’s all I got to say.

    Comment by Julie — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 3:46 pm

  47. Can I pleas be banned from this site. I seriously don’t think I am good for men online,

    Comment by Julie — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 3:49 pm

  48. Very good idea Skeptik, about a web site allowing people to out all courses they have attended and found biased towards feminism.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 4:30 pm

  49. It wasn’t a rhetorical question! Any thoughts, anyone?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 4:32 pm

  50. Julie, if you wouldn’t mind sending me an email with some details I’ll certainly give it serious consideration.
    kiwi @ (added spaces to fool those nasty email scrapers)

    Comment by Wayne — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 6:13 pm

  51. soo classic….I just spit some pasta out of my mouth…

    Comment by MAX — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 9:13 pm

  52. time for a joke:
    q: what do you call judge brussell’s sceleton being found in the closet?
    a: the winner of a hide and seek game.

    Comment by MAX — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 9:18 pm

  53. equally, of course, it could have been: ‘what do you call Sue Kedgley’s sceleton being found…

    Comment by MAX — Fri 18th March 2011 @ 9:49 pm

  54. Civilization will continue to devolve as long as feminists (women and their male enablers) continue to promote their wicked agenda of defrauding fathers and their children and enabling the Central Banks and their systemic theft of public infrastructures.

    Obviously, in countries like the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, feminism has crippled preparation for and response to disasters, including hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and malfunctioning nuclear plants. These countries can’t even manage day to day routine without creating a catastrophe, and the reason is easily connected to their greatly feminized politics. Theirs is a politics of malignant narcissism and psychopathy and hate and paranoia and fear and greed – and always ends in disaster.

    There is no legal, political or social solution to the problems of feminism. Feminists (women and their male enablers) must withdraw from their posts voluntarily and immediately, so that responsible, honest, hard-working men can repair the damage (if possible at this point). (And they are post, as in military posts, because feminists have been waging a real war against reason and sense and compassion and intellect for forty years.) If feminists do not withdraw from their posts, the inevitable consequences will ensue. This is the last chance to surrender, as the world cannot handle more disasters like Katrina or Japan and, more importantly, the bizarre and delusional feminist response to them, which only makes things worse.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 1:06 am

  55. The institutions of feminism are mutually exclusive of civilization. Feminists cannot be negotiated or compromised with because they are psychopaths. They want absolute power and control and will pervert and twist any contract or negotiation to hold onto them. The only way to restore and promote civilization is to get rid of the feminists and their institutions. There is no compromise. As an illustration of just how stupid feminists are: picture a bunch of people (feminists) walking along the deck of a boat from bow to aft and poking holes in the bottom of it as they go. The ship is starting to sink, bow to aft. But the idiots (feminists) keep poking holes in it. Other people (responsible, hard-working and honest men) are scrambling to fix the holes and pump water out of the boat as the boat is sinking. Eventually, the honest, hard-working and responsible men can’t fix the holes or pump water fast enough, the boat sinks and everyone drowns. Feminists are so stupid, they don’t even understand that they sow the seeds for their own destruction, and if not themselves, then their own children and everyone else. That is the degree of evilness we are talking about here. Instead of trying to fix the holes and pump water, the honest, hard-working and responsible men should be throwing the feminists off the boat. Unless the feminists are eliminated, the boat will sink and there is nothing honest, hard-working and responsible men can do about it. They are just slaves at best to the irresponsible madness of the feminists. And any negotiation or compromise with them will result in absolute destruction of civilization. These people are evil – period. And they must be stopped – decisively and swiftly. The fate of all civilization depends upon it. Stop negotiating with them. They have no sense of compassion or reason or intellect to which appeal may be made. They don’t care. To them, the misery of others is simply affirmation of their success. These monsters simply will not stop until you are dead or enslaved by their irresponsibility, malice and caprice. They have no shame, guilt, empathy, remorse, analytical skills or sense of proportion. They are manipulative and compulsive liars. They are solipsistic walking personificiations of hell and chaos. Time is running out.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 2:06 am

  56. Such strong claims, Darryl X, need to be supported by actual examples rather than parables about making holes in ships. For example, in what way exactly have feminists been responsible for shortcomings in responding to those disasters?

    Does your call to remove feminists from positions of responsibility extend to all women?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 7:58 am

  57. Not to forget that feminism was created by the elite (or as some people call it: illuminati) to give them more money and power and women have been manipulated to become feminists to serve them for that purpose.

    Therefore it is not even feminists as such that are the evil, they are just puppets on a string, ignorant yes but not the actual cause of the problem.
    If you elliminate feminism it will just be replaced with a different tool to serve those who dont care about the welfare ofthe masses.

    Comment by MAX — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 9:16 am

  58. Hans – My solution does not extend to all women and men. It concerns those who do not recognize and promote the value of families and their critical role in civilization – that’s both men and women who actively predate upon families for profit or entertainment. Unfortunately, approximately one-third of all adult women in the US have pursued unilateral and malicious divorce from their husbands and enlisted the help of the government in forcibly separating approximately half of all children from half of all fathers during the past forty years. That’s 52-million children and 36-million fathers (a matter of public record). Approximately one-million restraining orders are issued per year, on average during the past forty years in the US, usually against a man and father during a divorce (again, a matter of public record). Approximately nine-million men have been incarcerated in state or federal prisons during the past forty years for inability to pay child support. Another one-third of women (at least) have made false allegations against men outside of divorce, including rape, sexual harassment, paternity fraud, etc… Unfortunately, women have a long history or choosing the easy way out and taking whatever handouts are the most convenient and require the least work – right now I think we can all agree that is the government, which is robbing from honest, hard-working and responsible men and giving what they have earned to women and their male enablers, and using whatever dishonest means to achieve those goals (lying in court, falsifying police reports, etc…). Approximately 1.8-million men have committed suicide during the past forty years as a result of these kinds of circumstances imposed upon them during divorce – the incidence of suicide among men in the US is four times that of women and great than that of women by a multiple of ten or more during divorce. Concerning the effects of feminism on disaster preparedness and public infrastructure, child-support and other feminist related causes consume more than two-thirds the entire US budget of the US. Before feminists started leaching off welfare programs approximately forty years ago, which were started with the best of intentions, these welfare programs consumed less than 10% of the entire US budget. Record of where are funds (tax dollars and others) are spent are well documented. They have been diverted away from important programs for maintaining a civilization and redirected to the excessive life-styles of women and their male enablers. Concerning child-support, approximately one-half of all men who are ordered to pay (approximately one-sixth of the entire adult male population) are destitute, in prison or have participated in a vast criminal sub-culture to pay or any combination of these. Part of that criminal subculture is manipulating financial instruments, institutions, mortgages, etc… to pay. When you combine that number with the number of men who have committed suicide in response to developments directly related to feminist imposed divorce, it’s hard to imagine how such circumstances would not cripple a response to disaster (let alone basic functioning of any part of the country). These same circumstances are true for Japan, NZ, GB and other greatly feminized countries. The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments by William S Comanor and Taken Into Custody: the War Against Fathers and Children by Stephen Baskerville and many other publications are good references and citations for the extreme strain feminism has had on the US and these other greatly feminized countries. I think anyone who studied the economies of feminized countries would be astonished at how much of their national budgets went to appeasing the excessive expectations of feminists (that’s a lot of women and their male enablers). All these data are out there and available for analyses. I have presented many specific examples in the past on this site that illustrate how our public infrastructure has been hijacked by feminists and how more and more of the population (men and women) are being enslaved. I’m happy to present them again. But they all tax the preparedness and response to disasters.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 9:38 am

  59. Hans – Just one of many examples and comparisons: the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (that’s just enforcement) commands a budget of approximately two-billion dollars a year (on average for the past ten years) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA – the ones that screwed up Katrina) commands a budget of approximately 1.5-billion per year (on average). That’s one ridiculous example and just the direct budgets – it does not include all the peripheral moneys associated. There are many more. For instance, the agency for Tobacco Alcohol and Firearms (a federal agency responsible various elements of law enforcement) and the Immigration Dept command approximately eight-thousand armed officers combined. The Dept of Child Support Enforcement and associated state agencies it is responsible for command approximately sixty-three-thousand armed officers. That should give you some idea of how screwed up our ability to prepare and respond to disaster is. I suspect other countries are in similar circumstances. Just guessing. And if they aren’t, countries like NZ, GB, AU and Japan are twenty years behind the US in progress of feminism, so if they aren’t in the shape we are, then they will be.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 10:33 am

  60. Hans – also consider the vast resources being redirected from math and science programs at university to women’s studies. At universities throughout the US, Women’s Studies have been the largest growth areas for university budgets. I don’t think anyone can argue that as budgets for our math and science programs dwindle, while programs for women’s studies continue to grow exponentially, that’s going to have a dramatic impact on disaster response and preparedness. How much do you think a degree in women’s studies is going to help someone prepare and respond to disaster compared to a degree in math or science? The list goes on and on. But the bottom line is so much of our country’s resources are exhausted on appeasing feminists and their sense of entitlement that there are virtually none left for routine administration of our public infrastructure, let alone disaster response and preparedness. And as I’ve mentioned, Japan and New Zealand and a few other countries are just as feminized or more so than the US. Our politicians don’t dare challenge budget requests from women’s studies programs at university or agencies for child support enforcement or social security or health care benefits specifically for women. Meanwhile, all these other programs critical for maintaining basic public infrastructure are gutted. Don’t get me wrong, I like some women, but not at the expense of all else, which is pretty much what it’s come down to. Women have literally priced themselves out of the market.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 11:50 am

  61. A few years ago, women’s groups complained that too much money was going to study of men and cardiovascular disease. The rationale for their complaint is that the number of women dying at the age of eighty from this disease was ten times greater than the number of men dying. And all these politicians began wringing their hands and saying, “You know, you’re right, we are spending too much on men concerning cardiovascular disease.” Idiots!! The reason so many more women than men were dying of cardiovascular disease at eighty is because more men died of cardiovascular disease than women by age sixty-five. By age eighty, there are so many more women that out-lived the men, there was no one left to die of cardiovascular disease except women – the men were already all dead. Sounds like more money ought to be going toward study of men and cardiovascular disease (and other causes of death that result in such discrepancy in longevity between the sexes) than toward women. But the way all these feminists manipulated and reported the data, just the opposite happened. That is another example of how we are ill-prepared for disaster response. We can’t even make a decision as obvious as this one without appeasing women at the expense of reality. How do you think we’re going to budget for disaster response and preparedness? Disaster resoonse and preparedness has as much to do with a country’s ability to administer its routine programs as anything else. And the US (and other countries) can’t even do that. I hope I’m not making too much of an idiot out of myself and that some of this makes sense.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sat 19th March 2011 @ 12:01 pm

  62. Thanks Darryl X. Your general argument is understandable and you give a couple of specific examples. I have no doubt it is realistic. More detailed evidence would be good, so please publish specific examples supporting the argument as you come across them. It does seem that things in the US have escalated to more ridiculous proportions than in NZ.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 20th March 2011 @ 9:51 am

  63. I’ll see what I can come up with. A smoking gun will be hard. Our most fundamental public programs have been crippled, from health care and actual emergency response to Social Security and other welfare programs. And the budgets or moneys concerning them have been coopted by feminists in obvious ways. But no one wants to say so directly. If a politician does speak about, like Gingerich, they talk in general terms – “entitlement programs”. Gingerich isn’t my favorite politician, but he has been the most bold one, stating that women have three options. They can get welfare, they can get married or divorced, or they can work. Men have three options, too – they can work or they can work or they can work. He’s not been very popular among the female population. However, he is getting more popular among everyone, including women, as things degenerate here.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 20th March 2011 @ 12:07 pm

  64. Ok, so nobody wants to play, that’s ok. I will explain my thoughts anyway in case anyone’s interested.

    I saw the professionals’ thinking as femi-centric because:

    (i) It assumed the “men won’t do their share of housework” model preferred by feminists and readily accepted this as an explanation for whatever conflict was happening in this household.

    (ii) If the gender roles were reversed, i.e. a young vulnerable woman were running away from her family home because a male family member was criticizing her, these professionals’ thinking would have gone down very different lines. Instead of nodding understandably as in “yes, women do tend to nag too much an it’s understandable that a male family member would confront her about this”, the professionals would have immediately questioned the nature of the man’s communication and behaviour that made her so scared or upset that she ran away.

    (iii) Indeed, this young man’s repeated running away is very unlikely to be adequately explained by his objection to being expected to tidy up after himself. More likely, either he had been treated abusively or he was becoming so unwell that he was interpreting home events in unwell ways. But because he the family member who confronted him was a female, the assumption was immediately made that she had behaved non-abusively, that she had good reason to criticize him, that her allegations must be true and that wish to remain lazy at home was an adequate explanation for his running away.

    Yes, no?

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 22nd March 2011 @ 7:27 pm

  65. Good call Hans. It’s like women are cops now – their word and motives are taken as gospel, while men are just a rabble to be ignored.

    Comment by yeah right — Tue 22nd March 2011 @ 7:45 pm

  66. Yeah right,
    Sorry about the double posting. A slip of the fingers after a long day.
    What I meant to say was this:

    Every now and then I come across a phrase or sentence which powerfully ‘leaps off the page’ at me such is it’s clarity, accuracy and brevity.
    You have just written such an expression –

    It’s like women are cops now – their word and motives are taken as gospel, while men are just a rabble to be ignored.

    Well done, and please spread this meme far and wide.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 22nd March 2011 @ 8:03 pm

  67. Well highlighted Skeptik. I had a similar reaction to John Brett’s great sentence in his recent lead post:

    Family life has become so unattractive to men, and made into a form of legal and financial suicide, that our western civilization needs to consider if it still has a future.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 22nd March 2011 @ 11:20 pm


    Sad if you are a low income guy like me. Why dont women touch blue collar guys.

    Comment by dan — Fri 25th March 2011 @ 8:04 pm

  69. Hi Dan, don’t be sad. Please take the time to watch the Psycho Girlfriend Series to see what you might be missing out on.

    Comment by Wayne — Fri 25th March 2011 @ 8:19 pm

  70. Its horrible being a single guy in this country. Everyone goes on about racism and sexism etc but no one cares about single low income males. There are no specific learning centres at university for males or mentall health services for males that are not all pc lefties that put you down.

    Why wont women stop judging men by there status, I thought women all voted labour/green and where into inclusiveness and collectivism.

    Comment by Dan — Sat 26th March 2011 @ 3:48 pm

  71. Dunno if this means much, but if I noticed it probably someone else has too.

    When the Chch earthquake struck, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind was ‘CBD full of shoppers, office-workers and tourists, media building and language school hardest hit: this means lots of female casualties’.

    Within days the New Zealand Herald was plastered with photos of nearly all male dead, and the small number of names released were overwhelmingly male. About two weeks later a much larger list was released, this time about 50:50 male:female. It just didn’t make sense. It was about as incongruous as hearing about a mining disaster and seeing only females amongst the photos of victims.

    Finally the police are releasing the names of the remaining victims in dribs and drabs. They are 100% female.

    Why the delay – anyone?

    Comment by yeah right — Sat 26th March 2011 @ 10:33 pm

  72. As I understand it, the police have to inform the family first. And looking at the list of names and there country, its not surprising names are coming in dribs and drabs.

    Can only guess why only female names now though.

    Comment by Jono — Sun 27th March 2011 @ 5:49 am

  73. Actually this reminds me of a TV ad that that used to be on years ago

    “Girls can do anything”

    but being a guy meant you couldnt do “female role” job.

    Like when i was a kid, (bank) tellers were female. checkout operators were female. nurses were generally female. It hasnt changed alot when we look at it. Battle of the sexes will never end. Lets face it, both sides are as bad as the other, there is always that need to dominate the other.

    Comment by Jono — Sun 27th March 2011 @ 6:02 am

  74. Dan,
    This article and the comments following it may explain things and help.
    It’s one of the best articles I’ve read regarding men’s issues in a long time. The conversation amongst Men’s Rights Activists is certainly deepening and maturing to such a degree that rather than reacting to feminism, it is dissembling feminism and feminists at a deeper and deeper level.
    I encourage you to ask around for courses of study that aren’t PC putting down of males. Asking such questions will put out the message that there is a demand for the kind of learning you’re looking for.
    Wise people will in turn respond to the demand as wise suppliers respond to the demands on the marketplace. If nothing comes up you may like to go for some distance learning online?

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 27th March 2011 @ 2:49 pm

  75. Of course not! Why worry about that other half of the population?

    Comment by Scott B — Wed 20th April 2011 @ 10:16 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