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

Recent Notable News Articles

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 3:38 pm Sun 3rd April 2011

Not a week goes by without numerous examples of institutional sexism against men, misandrist beliefs expressed and/or demonstrated by powerful people and journalists, or chivalry and special treatment towards women. So what’s the problem? Should we complain? Some feminists, like Cate J who recently visited us with trickery and lies, genuinely believe that men have nothing to complain about because they are privileged compared to women. Other feminists acknowledge some unfairness but excuse this on the basis that “it’s men’s turn now to be disadvantaged”. Most feminists prefer to live in blissful denial of the social reality, believing that everything’s going in a good direction now that women’s wisdom is influential.

In my opinion equal opportunity and rights, equal treatment under the law and equal standards of interpersonal care are desirable aims. They were the demands of feminists in the past. They were the basis on which men agreed to massive social change. But now it seems those aims were fraudulent. Feminists now show zilch interest in addressing inequality when it advantages women. They ignore, ridicule, attack and/or destroy men who draw attention to gender inequalities. They screech for greater violence against men for behaving contrary to their preference, and laugh at the suffering of men damaged by the current regime.

So here’s a sample of this week’s evidence. It’s not much different from the evidence any other week, if only I could allow myself the time each week to expose it all from the perspective of aware men.

These two women, criminals Lani Aperahama and Kaycee Wall, acted together to take revenge on a man for carrying on sexual relationships with both without telling them. Their crimes against him included various forms of harassment as well as violently wrecking possessions in his house (intentional damage carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment) and blackmail (carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment). Ah yes, but these offenders were female so they received 350 hours community work. For good measure, the judge indulged in hefty victim bashing with comments such as

‘Any long-term harm will occur from the complainant’s conduct, which was morally reprehensible’


‘I do not consider the harm to the complainant or to his family from this offending will be long term’.

The judge took into account a psychologist’s report that stated one of the offenders ‘might have’ been affected by an ‘acute stress disorder’. Talk about excuses. The judge gave both women the same sentence, so perhaps he believed the “possibility of an acute stress disorder” was a contagious phenomenom.

Just imagine if two men had gone into a cheating woman’s house and trashed it, then conspired to extort money from her through blackmail! The judge would have used the term ‘victim’ instead of ‘complainant’ in referring to the woman. The fact that the offenders worked together would have been seen as hugely aggravating making the offending tantamount to terrorism. The woman’s cheating would have been seen as pretty well irrelevant. In fact, our law strongly protects the right of women to cheat sexually and punishes men with protection orders or worse for so much as criticizing a woman for unfaithfulness. Feminists object to any notion that provocation might be seen to reduce a man’s responsibility for losing self-control, but where are their concerns when two women are almost excused for their violence essentially on the basis of provocation?

In this case the judge’s attitude appeared to be an effective male-bashing role model. Offender Kaycee Wall after sentencing boasted on Facebook that at least she would get her property back but the victim wouldn’t (presumably because she had destroyed it and wasn’t ordered to pay any reparation). Was this the ‘remorse’ that the judge referred to as shown by both women? Journalist Bevan Hurley felt entitled to make light of the offending with a headline about ‘Shoe-nuking Lani’ and describing a stunt headed ‘Nuclear Science’ to see what happens to shoes in a microwave oven (totally ignoring the many other acts of damage carried out by the offenders). Ho ho ho, what a laugh. He also gave a platform for the mother of offender Aperahama to demean the victim. The mother, also seemingly emboldened by the judge’s lead, claimed her daughter had been ‘harshly treated’, complained that the victim ‘got off scot-free’ (What?! Did he commit criminal offences?), and ranted publicly that she would violently physically attack him if she saw him. Ah yes, a woman’s caring and empathy for a male victim of violence is something to behold. Yes, Human Rights Commission, carry on your taxpayer-funded White Ribbon Campaign encouraging us to show we’re against violence towards women (but not men).

At least Aperahama and Wall were convicted. This woman, Margaret Russell, was acquitted of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm against her ex-partner. The jury must have believed that the complainant made up his account that she broke a jar and stabbed at his face five times with the jagged remains. The jury must also have disbelieved the four people she had earlier told that she wanted to kill the complainant. Instead, the jury must have believed her claim that she broke the jar above the complainant’s head simply to attract his attention and that the first of the two serious wounds on his arms was accidental because he was silly enough to flail his arms around when she broke the jar and the second was from him walking past her and cutting his own arm on the broken jar she was still holding. Yeah right. You can work out for yourself how the jury would have voted if the gender roles had been reversed. And it’s unlikely that journalist Lyn Humphreys would have made light of the violence with a headline about a ‘lolly jar’. How much more of this female favouritism are we to endure? I have no doubt that this male victim of female violence told the truth, and in addition was decent enough not to apply for a protection order to force the woman out of the house, and decent enough to transport the woman to and from the Courthouse.

And what about this one?! A female preschool teacher smacked her young ‘pupils’, pulled their hair and put them in a cupboard for up to half an hour. Yet police decided not to prosecute because of ‘the difficulty of getting evidence from children and the trauma it would put them through’. What? Tell that to Peter Ellis! Oh right, I forgot, he’s a male so that makes it easy to get evidence from children (especially when suggested to them beforehand) and makes it not traumatic for them. We are not allowed to know the name of this allegedly abusive female teacher or the preschool she worked at because the Employment Relations Authority has ordered this. Presumably because the police would not prosecute and the woman had some connection with the school board, the woman received $12000 ‘grievance settlement’, a positive reference and an agreement that her name and alleged behaviour would be kept secret. Although the Ministry of Education threatened to shut the preschool down unless it got rid of the teacher, that same Ministry now will allow her to apply for jobs elsewhere without mentioning her past. CYFS seem happy to sit on their hands too. What planet are we on again? Just imagine if this teacher had been a man! Numerous journalists and feminist groups would be up in arms creating a public controversy about it. Brave bloggers would find out and expose the identity of this violent male with strong public support behind them. CYFS would be working their ‘trained evidential interviewer’ social workers overtime to get dirt from the children that can be used to pressure police to prosecute. Ah, but this teacher is female, and for females we have the Pussy Pass.

Then there’s this little expose by journalist David Fisher. A sole mother had her three children removed from her care because they were starving, had nits, lice, skin lesions, infections and wounds that had not been attended to. One child described eating cockroaches to stay alive. However, not a word of blame was placed by David Fisher on the mother. After all, she’s a female and we must never find fault with them. Instead, these children’s appalling state was claimed to be a stark example of poverty in NZ and the mean WINZ people insisting that parents receive budgeting advice before being given emergency grants. For me, this article was a stark example of the Pussy Pass embedded in our nation’s psyche. The article did provide an interesting costing though. Apparently, it costs about $30,000 per year to provide care for a child who has been removed from poor family situations. Presumably that will include the cost of accommodation. It follows that $30,000 minus the accommodation component, divided in half should be the maximum any father can be expected to pay in child support. The father should not pay for the mother’s accommodation because he equally has to provide accommodation suitable for the children to stay at his home.

What about this story about enslaved, exploited, abused and killed seamen on foreign fishing boats charted by NZ companies and iwi who hold quota? At least the journalist Michael Field used the terms ‘men’ and ‘fishermen’, but the significance of the story for gender issues and the plight of men was not mentioned or explored. NZ agencies’ lack of concern about these atrocities was blamed on the fishermen’s foreign race, but I would bet that if the workers were women or even included a few women, NZ government agencies would be on their case without delay. Some of those agencies are highly active in combating sex trafficking of women and children, but seem to turn a blind eye to what is overwhelmingly the most frequent people trafficking and exploitation: men for their labour.

Or this story that actually had a better outcome thanks to the Employment Court? A pilot had been dismissed by Air Nelson (owned by Air NZ) for serious misconduct after having sex with a hostess when their flight was delayed overnight. The story appears to be an example of a woman agreeing to, indeed requesting and initiating sex that she later regretted, then running to the police alleging rape. In this case the police found no evidence of any offence but the woman cried sexual harassment to the employer who jumped to her support, decided she had been sexually harassed and sacked the pilot on what finally transpired to be false grounds. The Employment Relations Authority rode in as white knights to rescue this woman too, but finally the Employment Court was brave enough to show fairness to this man. The crime here was that our feminist-soaked attitudes and feminist-poluted employment policies enabled this man to be persecuted in the first place, then over such a long period of time. I guess we can’t expect much else from an airline that won’t allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men.

And what about Marama Davidson, an employee at our Human Rights Commission (HRC)? (Yes, that’s right, the Commission that spends megabucks of our money on the sexist White Ribbon Campaign that through omission condones violence towards men). While at work she made various highly derogatory comments that amounted to hate speech against a male Ngapuhi activist David Rankin, including saying she wanted to boil his head. Mr Rankin complained to the HRC which doesn’t appear to have accepted responsibility for Davidson’s actions exactly but simply stated that it had taken ‘appropriate disciplinary action’ and refused to comment further. Mr Rankin later claimed that if the offender had been Pakeha ‘they wouldn’t have been at work on Monday’. Sorry David, I doubt that. Whether she had been Maori or Pakeha wouldn’t have made too much difference. But if the employee had a penis, then you can be sure he would have been publicly disgraced and sacked.

There is so much more news but so little time to write about it. If these few don’t get your heads shaking in disbelief and your hearts feeling for the victimized men, the NZ government might want to hire you.


  1. Well said Hans, I was thinking all the same things myself while reading the news this past week. Frankly I am amazed at the Victorian ‘moral’s of the judiciary in the Lani Aperahama and Kaycee Wall case. It was them who was supposed to be on trial, not the victim. I have no doubt if the roles had been reversed the men would have got time for blackmail.

    Comment by Brian — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 3:48 pm

  2. I’m absolutely Gobsmacked!!
    As bad as I thought misandry was in NZ I had no idea it was this bad.
    Thank you Hans for providing information which convinces me to stay an ex-pat man for the time being.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 3:55 pm

  3. After all, she’s a female and we must never find fault with them.

    how true is that statement.

    This feminist world we keep hearing about isnt about equal rights for both sexes. Or even world peace. Its about allowing Women to do as they please without any consequences for there actions. Turning a blind eye because of what sex you are.

    Really thinking about it, whats the future for New Zealand? North Island for Males only and south for Females? Or males have to be going around with hand cuffs on (oh I bet the feminists love that one) after all your guilty of being a male.

    Comment by Jono — Sun 3rd April 2011 @ 4:28 pm

  4. See the link below. Great interview recently on NPR (Nat’l Public Radio) of Phyllis Schlafly, the Constitutional Attorney who almost single-handedly defeated the Equal Rights Amendment during the early 70’s in the US. If you don’t know who she is, check her out. She is THE reason the US and rest of the developed world wasn’t turned into an even more oppressive and tyrannical post feminist dystopian police state than it is now a long time ago. If you think you’ve got it bad now (and I do), she is the reason it wasn’t worse forty years ago. She’s a folk hero here in the US – don’t know if you guys have heard of her. See the link below.

    Comment by Darryl X — Mon 4th April 2011 @ 10:30 am

  5. HRC has been and continues to be the epitomy of a sick joke.
    I’ve spoken to them and had it’s feminist agenda revealed to me in all it’s glory. It should be scrapped as part of the budget along with that other white elephant; the ministry for women.

    Comment by noconfidence — Mon 4th April 2011 @ 10:11 pm

  6. We have a new development in the case of the HRC employee Marama Davidson’s emotional violence: According to her victim she sent emails to him retracting her apology for her violence. I have sent the following letter to the HRC:

    PO Box 13130
    Tauranga 3141

    5 April 2011

    R Noonan
    Chief Commissioner
    Human Rights Commission
    PO Box 12411

    SENT ALSO VIA EMAIL TO [email protected]

    Dear Ms Noonan

    Re: Complaint by David Rankin regarding Marama Davidson

    I add my support to Mr Rankin’s complaint against your employee Ms Davidson.

    Ms Davidson’s behaviour amounted to emotional violence as well as implied threat of physical violence, under definitions of violence operating in our Family Court and other state organizations including, I am sure, your Commission. Your failure to report back to the public detailing the disciplinary procedures and consequences demonstrated both minimization of Ms Davidson’s behaviour and avoidance of public scrutiny of your organization’s behaviour. We now learn that Ms Davidson retracted her apology after your claimed disciplinary procedures, suggesting that your procedures implicitly condoned her violence and/or emboldened her to continue her attacks against the victim.

    There is little doubt that if a male employee had expressed such violent, threatening and emotionally abusive communication towards a woman both you as Chief Commissioner and Ms Joanna Collinge as Executive Director would have taken this much more seriously. It is unlikely that man would still retain the confidence of his employer. The fact that Ms Davidson still has her job after her violence is evidence of institutionalised sexism in the Commission favouring women. This of course is entirely consistent with the Commission’s support and funding for the White Ribbon Campaign that only discourages violence when it is towards women and, through omission, condones violence towards men.

    Yours faithfully

    Hans Laven

    Copy to: David Rankin

    Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 5th April 2011 @ 11:13 am

  7. Yes indeed noconfidence.
    The HRC continues it’s appalling anti male discrimination as Hans skillfully points out in his letter to them.
    My own personal actions in challenging the HRC were met with similar stonewalling to that which Hans is getting.
    It’s a terrible shame as in a way it sets the tone of the whole country.
    I too advocate the positive step of scrapping the current HRC in favor of a body that recognizes males too and outright getting rid of the misery of wimminz affears.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 5th April 2011 @ 11:48 am


    as a low income single man that cant get a wife this makes my blood boil. Notice how the caring and sharing feminst just says oh its genetic to marry up and normal.

    Yet she would also be horrified at inequality with miniorities or women or gay people.

    This article below is bang on the money.

    Comment by dan h — Tue 5th April 2011 @ 1:50 pm

  9. good one hanz

    Comment by MAX — Tue 5th April 2011 @ 6:13 pm

  10. dan h…having a wife etc. is greatly overrated…start a ‘shed (night)’, get some mates around…build/fix things…get a motorcycle (doesnt need to be big or expensive)…go riding with the boys (check out ‘kiwibiker’ forum)…way more fun…

    Comment by MAX — Tue 5th April 2011 @ 6:22 pm

  11. whats going on…nobody reply’s…i need some attention…do i write in gibberish or what…i do a lot of ground work…not just a talker…i haven’t touched a women in years…ok, i quit…menz is not for me…they need me somewhere else…sob sob sob…


    “Honey, if I agreed with you we’d both be wrong”

    Comment by MAX — Tue 5th April 2011 @ 9:00 pm

  12. get a motorcycle

    Yea they can be great and cheapish to run. Just use the car for picking/dropping off my daughter at the moment.

    ok, i quit”¦menz is not for me”¦they need me somewhere else”¦sob sob sob

    better hours? better pay? better articles (ouch)?

    Comment by Jono — Wed 6th April 2011 @ 11:32 am

  13. ok i am back (‘people’ do that all the time…)…
    (cheers jono)

    quote from hans: “…Not a week goes by without numerous examples of institutional sexism against men, misandrist beliefs expressed and/or demonstrated by powerful people and journalists, or chivalry and special treatment towards women. So what’s the problem?… -unquote.

    here is another insight into the cause of the above mentioned problem from our friends at ‘voice for men’:

    Comment by MAX — Wed 6th April 2011 @ 4:42 pm

  14. It’s a fact – I think – that people simply ‘care’ less about attacks or injustices against men.

    I tend to wonder how much this is Victorian values and how much just the way we’re predisposed – and an obstacle to any men’s rights groups. The best we can do is to list these things – as you are doing – and simply make people aware of this fact*

    The evidence isn’t hard to find. Watch the news any night of the week and they will talk about how “many of the victims [of war, disease, famine, natural distaster etc] were women and children…” as if this is at all relevant.

    There’s a fascinating video on Youtube demonstrating not only this, but that if men are victims, they are referred to by their job titles (miners/staff/soldiers) and never “men”.

    I think the video is under the name “Misandry”, a word I can’t stand and never use

    *that’s the difficult part 🙂 People can be shockingly obtuse when something conflicts with their ideas world

    Comment by Henry — Thu 7th April 2011 @ 6:07 am

  15. Thanks for referring us to that Youtube video, Henry. There’s plenty of evidence in our own media of the same thing. For example, when male workers are injured of killed on the job their gender is often not mentioned at all:

    One dead after truck rolls on Desert Road

    One person killed in tractor accident

    Rise in farm deaths ‘bitterly disappointing’

    but when a woman is injured on the job her gender is repeatedly emphasized:

    Road worker hit by van seriously injured

    Woman falls 4 metres from water tower

    Similarly, when men are the victims of violence their gender is often not mentioned. Is it the police or the media who are so keen to avoid highlighting evidence that conflicts with the feminist version of reality? Check out the evidence; it’s hard to believe the lengths the journalists go to to avoid all mention of men as victims!

    Man arrested after reported knife threat

    Police hunt man who stabbed taxi driver

    Hammer used in violent home invasion

    Armed robbery on North Shore

    Officers assaulted in frenzied attack by couple

    Cafe worker attacked in robbery

    Masked men rob Hastings refuse tip

    Witnesses sought to cash van robbery

    Police run from sword attack

    But, of course, when the victim is female her gender is emphasized:

    Police seek information on lone gunman

    Hamilton police hunt man who held up sex shop

    Also, when men carry out acts of kindness, bravery or heroism their gender is often not thought worth mentioning:

    Tourist saves toddler from creek

    Firefighters risk lives to rescue family

    But when women carry out acts of bravery or kindness, their gender is emphasized:

    Mother saves woman from attack

    Good samaritan tails hit-and-run driver

    Strange isn’t it that men’s gender is made invisible in all these ways while women’s gender is publicized? Hey, I’m not making this up, it’s all there for you to see!

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 9th April 2011 @ 9:49 am

  16. Whenever a woman or girl succeeds at something, no matter how obscure, the media always makes a story of it as well. The background is always ‘another woman taking men on and winning’. There is no parallel story of men beating women and being congratulated for it.

    The psychological effect is that women are winning everywhere, that they are more capable than men and that they do not have the same capacity for doing bad things. A more evil mass maligning of an entire people is hard to imagine.

    Comment by yeah right — Sat 9th April 2011 @ 11:50 am

  17. Thank you Hans for a very impressive line up of links.
    Given the prevalence of this phenomena in the media, it’s difficult not to draw the conclusion that pedestalizing women and making men invisible isn’t done deliberately.

    Indeed I know many feminists (male and female)who engage in such behavior as they hold a grudge against men – who they foolishly see as having been unduly praised for their historic achievements.

    They make a massive historical and sociological mistake I believe.
    It isn’t that women didn’t achieve in history.
    Women achieved a massive amount.
    They forget how until recent times life was short and very brutal.
    As recently as Victorian times (high achiever woman by the way) the average life expectancy was something like a paltry 35 – 45 years maximum!
    In that context historically for a woman to give birth several times (before the days of antibiotics, painkillers and other modern medical procedures – all invented by men to relieve suffering by the way) simply WITHOUT DYING was often a major achievement!
    They forget too that infant mortality was high.
    It didn’t leave a lot of energy left over for achievements in such things as art, science and philosophy! – although a few exceptional women (usually privileged by class) made contributions to those fields as well.

    It’s a shame this form of vengence feminism has taken hold and so widespread too.
    The more I study feminists the more they appear misguided carriers of chips on their shoulders.

    Those who forget history forgo the future.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sat 9th April 2011 @ 2:28 pm

  18. As a low income single low status male that liberal left wing caring women refuse to have anything to do with due to my income, I suggest all men like me and thats a large section of society go on strike. Refuse to do anywork for women. refuse to lift thing for them or dig there holes or fight there wars or service there cars or build there floors and see how long they keep up this bigoted attack on men.

    Comment by dan h — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 12:13 pm

  19. We did that already in the US – they threw us in jail. It’s called slavery. You don’t have a choice but to work for them. You can’t go on strike. You’re not an employee. You’re a slave.

    Comment by Darryl X — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 2:07 pm

  20. You can refuse to work for women in many ways.
    Here’s one instance.
    Every day in working situations I get women trying to use their sexual wiles and pumping me with questions to glean hard won insights from me. I stonewall them.
    I deliberately DON’T mentor them.
    Because I’ve noticed they very seldom ask for help in front of others, especially bosses as it means acknowledging a deficit.
    However, if they do such in front of my boss I’ll say something like

    “Well, that’s something I could show you”.

    Notice I don’t say ‘That’s something I WILL teach you.”

    It’s all about being getting smarter about how many women will use you and devising counter strategies.
    A topic I invite men to discuss in greater depth and detail.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 10th April 2011 @ 3:32 pm

  21. Hmm interesting to read your article about Lani and Kaycee. I know both these women personally and believe you me, this is not about equality between the sexes. You read a very brief brief version to this story. The actions of the so-called victim were absolutely reprehensible. Did you know one of the woman involved, her father was killed only a few months before this happened and this man hugely benefited from his death? Did you also know how he stole the savings money from the children’s account of one of these women. The little girls were aged 6 and 9 at the time and they missed out on a xmas for 2009 because he had stolen all of their mothers and their own money? Nobody was told how he swindled thousands of dollars out of both these women and used that money to take other women overseas on holiday. Or how he put these women at risk of sexually transmitted diseases. As for the property, did anyone bother to ask who the property belonged too?? No, in fact it belonged to both these women so I find it difficult to understand how somebody could be charged for destroying and stealing their own property. No, that story was never told because nobody bothered to delve any further into this than the ink that was printed on the page. The judge knew the ins and outs of the case and believe you me, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman who had carried out these actions the outcome would surely have to be the same. There are whole bunch of victims here, Lani, Kaycee, the children…but as for that man, any person capable of carrying out such actions are worth nothing more than the dust from soles of our feet.

    Comment by Dallas — Sun 8th May 2011 @ 10:26 pm

  22. Hmmm ‘Dallas’. It does seem typical that whenever women commit violence against men other women see this as justified and acceptable because he ‘deserved it’ and so forth. But any remotely violent reaction by a man is ‘not ok’ and his claims of provocation are dismissed.

    Even if what you allege is true (and it may be that you have heard these allegations from the offenders without getting the other side of the story or verifying the allegations), these women like anybody else were responsible for dealing with the situations in correct, legal ways. Any man who took the law into his own hands and used violence and extortion in retribution, especially if he plotted and carried out such offending with someone else, would be punished much more severely than were these women. Regardless of the fact they may have had valid grievances against this man, they were given a pussy pass.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 8th May 2011 @ 11:25 pm

  23. Quick note, Hans – You probably already know this, so I’m reiterating for benefit of others. Women are responsible for most domestic violence. This fact is well established in the scientific literature. The most common excuses for domestic violence by women fall under the category of “he is not being sensitive to my emotional ‘needs'”. The most common reason cited for domestic violence by men is that they are protecting the children from an abusive mother. So, here we have the reasons for domestic violence. Even though men are accused of it way more often than women, reality is that women are actually more often responsible. And even when men do commit domestic violence, they have a good reason, which reflects very poorly on the women. Usually, women do not.

    Comment by Darryl X — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 12:31 am

  24. Dallas,
    Your accusations against a man are simply that, nothing more.
    A man is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
    At least under natural rather than feminist law.
    Your final sentence displays a terribly dehumanizing attitude which is sad, bitter and very ironic given your UNPROVEN claims.

    Comment by Skeptik — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 5:18 am

  25. Skeptik – That experience has been very common for me – women in the workplace trying to manipulate from me valuable information and then claiming it as their own and worse yet claiming that I was somehow unhelpful and did not provide the information or hard-won wisdom. I usually haven’t played games with their attempts to manipulate – stonewalling or otherwise. I simply refused to communicate. Furthermore, if I was forced to communicate, as my supervisor was a woman so disposed to manipulate me (and in the most egregious and deceitful ways), I made sure she articulated her position in writing (either by e-mail or some other way like promoting a meeting of relevant parties so that they were aware of my contributions and her incompetence beforehand and knew that if anything was accomplished it was because of me and not her). Usually, in response to my professionalism and integrity, she proposed discisplinary action against me, claiming that I was insubordinate and guilty of misconduct, and even though it was never valid, it was upheld by her chain-of-command, a component of which was usually the adjudicator. Much like family law, even with overwhelming evidence of my innocence (and critical benefit to my employer), it would side with my female supervisor – these people are so evil and stupid that they will shoot their own organization in the head to advance themselves without understanding that the house of cards has to fall sometimes. Ultimately, it resulted in my termination even though I never did a thing wrong. There were just so many false allegations against me that processing them in an effort to protect me employment was impossible because of the excessive expense in time and money. I finally succumbed. In a work environment, like the feminist cabal it is today, protecting your professional integrity is impossible. It requires other like-minded professionals with integrity and character, which are few and far between. That is an important reason the economy of the US and developed world is teetering on collapse.

    Comment by Darryl X — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 7:49 am

  26. Very likely and easily documented, Dallas, the property did not belong to the women but the men from whom they stole it. Women don’t have a good track record of investing in the future, which includes buying property. In the US, almost all homes owned by women were purchased with money obtained from excessive orders for child support. They did not work and save and invest for it. They stole it, in violation of the Constitution and laws. I have kept a considerable volume of data concerning property ownership and I am mesmerized by the number of women who believe they were able to afford a house from the little work they do. Almost always the house was purchases exclusively with money from excessive child support orders. Yet they think that an excessive child support award that they receive as a result of lying in court and falsifying police reports is income with which they purchased a house. It isn’t – it’s blood money.

    Comment by Darryl X — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 7:56 am

  27. …I stand by what was done to this man. If a man had done this to a women I would support him too. What these women did may have been wrong in the eyes of the law but it was morally just. He destroyed these woman’s lives with his lies and deceit, imagine building a future together with somebody and allowing them to impact on not only your life but the life of your children. Only to find out years later that you were only one of many and he was a con-man. This man owned nothing. Everything he owned of any significance was purchased by one of his many girlfriends. Kaycee purchased vehicles for him and his daughter. Lani purchased a home for them and furnished it. Another lady he was also seeing purchased the boat that he owned. All his computer equipment was purchased by Kaycee. This is not a case of what I heard, it is fact. Both these women were looking at 8 years jail minimum if found guilty which is a risk they were not prepared to take. The facts were put to the judge of who owned what and the fact that they were only asking for their own money back was a huge part of why they only received the 350 hours community service. I don’t disagree with you that women get an easy road when it comes to crimes of violence against men in this country. But inequality has it’s shortcomings for both the sexes. For instance you need only look at the pay equality debate in this country. It’s obvious that women get the raw deal in this regard but to be honest, who cares. Such is life and personally if life didn’t have its ups and downs then what fulfillment would we gain from it.

    Comment by Dallas — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 10:42 am

  28. I stand by what was done to this man.

    It’s disappointing that you believe violence is okay when the target is a man. VIOLENCE IS NOT OKAY Dallas, EVER! What part of that don’t you understand?

    But inequality has it’s shortcomings for both the sexes. For instance you need only look at the pay equality debate in this country. It’s obvious that women get the raw deal in this regard….

    It’s also disappointing that you have been hypnotized with the dishonest pay-parity feminist propaganda. It’s utter nonsense!

    Comment by Wayne — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 12:10 pm

  29. Gidday Dallas
    “He destroyed these woman’s lives with his lies and deceit, imagine building a future together with somebody and allowing them to impact on not only your life but the life of your children.”
    I dont have to imagine it at all, I simply have to remember it, as it’s what the ex did to me and our children with the assistance of wimmens refuse and the Femily caught. Same deal apparently, legally all OK but morally so wrong. Therefore my apologies if I have little sympathy for your pontificating about how the system has shafted these women. As you say they got 350 hours of community service pah its hardly a wrist slap with a wet bus ticket. Men would have been punished harder for the same. In my own case Im blessed with the IRD forcing me to hand over large sums of child tax to the ex to ensure she doesnt have to suffer any undue hardship for her moral bankruptcy.

    Since you raised it, can you tell me of a company in New Zealand that is paying women with the same qualifications , experience, ability and work ethics less than men simply on the grounds of gender?


    Comment by Mits — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 12:16 pm

  30. Mits,
    If as feminists claim women get paid less for doing the same job as men what company would hire men?

    They only got community service?
    Oh my God!

    Comment by Skeptik — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 4:17 pm

  31. A pussy pass?? Well, that’s classy. As a person that has worked in male dominated environments for most of my career I can tell you that the road certainly has not been easy. I have children of my own that I raised with no help from the system. Their father was killed when my youngest was a year old. I have worked full-time and never received any sort of child support from a dead father. As for inheriting anything, well we were 20 when he was killed so there was nothing to inherit but a beat up old car, a couple of lounge chairs we had bought for $5 from a charity shop and a whole bunch of mens clothing that was no good to me. I admit, I moved to Auckland when I was 23 with my children and signed up for charity to assist me while I searched for a job. I moved into a home that cost me $340 a week and my entitlement from the government was $345 a week. Obviously this did not last long and I managed to get myself out of that predicament and back on my feet. Point being, do I blame the system…No. Do I blame my ex for dying on me?…No. What then? Well I just get the hell over it and move on. And if you lot think that breaking a few household items is violence then maybe you need to re write the anger management course (ironically targeted at men) they are the ones that say go out and bash up a boxing bag, punch a pillow or smash something on the ground but don’t hit your partner. When I look at the sports channels, I don’t see the boxing or wrestling dominated by women…no, they are all male dominated sports. Get over the fact that you were screwed over by women because there are faults on both sides and arguements can be made until the cows come home. Until you lot realise that your fighting a losing battle and the only change that will make a difference is in your attitude then all you will ever be is an hidden voice on a random website that no one really is paying any attention too.

    Comment by Dallas — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 9:54 pm

  32. The problem is not attitude, Dallas. It is practical. Civilization cannot bear the weight of institutionalized solipsism. Changing an attitude will not feed you or put a roof over your head or give you medical care. Women stole these critical necessities for survival by violating laws and the Constitution. If they are not held accountable for their actions and if men are not given some relief from them, then civilization will continue to disintegrate and women themselves will be their own undoing.

    Comment by Darryl X — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 11:38 pm

  33. Great point, Skeptik. I’ve often made the same observation. In the US, despite all the propaganda, women have incomes substantially greater than men yet produce far less and are still ill-prepared for retirement. The only reason most women have jobs is the result of laws promoted by aggressive feminist political hate groups requiring private companies and the gov’t to hire them.

    Comment by Darryl X — Mon 9th May 2011 @ 11:43 pm

  34. Dallas said…
    A pussy pass?? Well, that’s classy.

    But excedingly accurate.

    Throughout the western world women receive punishments a third of those afforded men across the entire spectrum of crimes. In New Zealand women could legally rape little boys – a quarter of all child sexual abuse – until only a couple of years ago.

    Women can abuse men or boys and be applauded for their violence. Their victims are laughed at and called liars even by services funded to help rape and domestic violence victims.

    Let me tell you what’s “classy” in ways your sarcasm may understand.

    Lorena Bobbit committed a brutal sexual mutilation and was applauded and celebrated by millions and millions of smirking women all over the world.

    Oprah Winfrey presents on her TV show women who have raped little boys. These rapists receive standing ovations from Oprah’s almost entirely female audiences. Thousands will stand and cheer and millions of women watch it as entertainment.

    Just a couple of years ago a Californian woman visited Australia. She came here to consumate the internet grooming of a thirteen year old Perth boy. Australia’s womens’ magazines – most notably New Idea – covered her jaunt as a cutesy love story under titles such as “Schoolboy Lover”. Hundreds of thousands of Australia’s women funded that child sex tourist’s trip to my country.

    Classy alright. Pussy pass doesn’t even scratch the surface.

    Female perpetrators of abuse and violence are rarely punished. They are frequently treated by courts and media as though they are the victims even when they have murdered or raped. Even when kids are their victims.

    Their victims are those experiencing…

    A quarter of child sexual abuse
    A third of intimate partner abuse
    Two thirds of all child abuse
    Eighty five percent of parental child abuse
    and many, many more.

    Those victims are blamed whilst their murderers and rapists and mutilators and abusers almost certainly will avoid any punishment. Those victims are denied justice, denied aid, denied any sort of recognition. If they dare speak out the most likely response is ridicule and accusations of dishonesty.

    In any act of abuse or sexual impropriety ANY female involved will be viewed as a victim even if she is the perpetrator and the only adult involved in the exchange.

    There’s a pussy pass alright and it’s an abomination.

    Comment by gwallan — Tue 10th May 2011 @ 12:34 am

  35. gwallan – data I have consulted (Daniel Whitaker, former Scientist, Center for Disease Control, Murray Abraham, Prof of Sociology, Univ NH, and many others) show consistently that women commit two-thirds of all domestic (intimate partner) violence and even much of the domestic violence that is attributed to men is justified in protecting children from a mother’s abuse of them or was at least initiated by the woman (so that ratio, if you weight it against context, is actually much greater). I was reading the ratios you reported above (maybe I didn’t interpret them correctly) and thought there is a discrepancy between them and the ratios that have been reported in scientific journals. I’m not too familiar with data concerning child sexual abuse (since it is not as common as physical or emotional abuse and there aren’t as many good data and their analyses) but I suspect the ratio committed by men and women is closer to 50:50 if not more by women for a variety of practical reasons (including opportunity and emotional dependency, which favor women), but it just is not reported that way. Maybe someone can provide a good reference or citation for my benefit sometime. But I agree entirely with the sentiment of your response and argument. Thanks.

    Comment by Darryl X — Tue 10th May 2011 @ 2:39 am

  36. Hi Dallas
    Still waiting to hear which company in New Zealand is paying women with the same qualifications , experience, ability and work ethics less than men simply on the grounds of gender?

    Comment by Mits — Tue 10th May 2011 @ 7:34 am

  37. Dallas says: And if you lot think that breaking a few household items is violence then maybe you need to re write the anger management course (ironically targeted at men) they are the ones that say go out and bash up a boxing bag, punch a pillow or smash something on the ground but don’t hit your partner.

    Dallas, you might benefit from perusing the NZ Police website where it specifically deals with Domestic Violence. HERE
    Protection Orders & the Domestic Violence Act
    Q. What does the law mean by “domestic violence‘?
    *damaging property as a way of hurting someone

    Are you grown up enough to admit when you are wrong Dallas?

    Comment by Wayne — Tue 10th May 2011 @ 9:30 am

  38. Yes, a pussy pass. Class has nothing to do with using the term either.
    Unless you want to bestow class based shaming No prizes for guessing which sex is deemed Upper class in that scenario. The attempt at shaming won’t work anyway – many of us MRA are now well and truly immune to feminist sex based shaming tactics – we routinely simply call them out.

    Professional boxing and wrestling AREN’T domestic violence. Duh!

    Many of us were screwed over by MEN and women. Feminist chivalrous hookup.

    No one really paying attention to us eh? Except for the thousands of hits the site gets. AND this is only one of many thousands and increasing numbers of MEN’S RIGHTS SITES.
    Oh and look here, YOU ARE obviously paying attention or you wouldn’t keep coming back. Duh! Even lost yourself in the rush to combat there.

    Incredible I have to explain this stuff!

    And the company which hires an all female staff because they can get them more cheaply than hiring men because of the mythical feminist wage gap is who did you say……..?

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 10th May 2011 @ 10:13 am

  39. Hello Dallas, are you there?

    Regarding this pay parity you mention…
    “It’s obvious that women get the raw deal in this regard”

    Sorry to go on about it, but for the life of me I dont find it so obvious as you subscribe.
    Enlighten a chap could you , if its so obvious and occurring in NZ then where is it

    Again and for the third time I ask you
    which company in New Zealand is paying women with the same qualifications , experience, ability and work ethics less than men simply on the grounds of gender?


    Comment by Mits — Wed 11th May 2011 @ 9:05 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