Sexism in Courts and Media
As I have said before, the frequency with which we see anti-male sexism means there are almost always good current examples handy. Take the following stories that have appeared in the news over the last week or so:
The first story was raised on MENZ by Wayne (21/01/11). It deserves fuller analysis and to be compared with similar cases involving male offenders. It was about a 17yo woman who had sexual intercourse with a 12yo boy after plying him with alcohol. Features of the case and the news article included:
– The female offender was consistently referred to as a ‘girl’. (Of course, if any of us did that we would be labelled misogynists seeking to ‘juvenilize’ women. Also, the fact that girls mature faster than boys is never mentioned when it might increase any responsibility placed on females regarding their behaviour, yet keenly highlighted when it suits the interests of females. In fact, the difference in gender maturation rates would serve to increase the relative mental/emotional age and power difference between this offender and victim compared with situations in which the genders were reversed.)
– Emphasis was placed on blaming the victim by a detailed claim that he went into her bedroom and asked for sex. (No mention here of the responsibility of the older person to protect children from experiences they are legally recognized as being not ready to handle safely, or for protecting children from alcohol. No mention either that the alcohol supplied to the boy probably influenced his behaviour, or of the likelihood that the offender probably engaged in sexual suggestion or invitation (i.e. grooming) earlier while letting the boy drink alcohol.)
– The article carefully avoided mentioning the gender of the ’23-year-old temporary caregiver’ who provided the alcohol that the two adults then allowed the 12yo boy to drink with them. Any guesses? (Clue: if a 23yo male had provided a 17yo ‘girl’ with alcohol, his gender would probably have been emphasized, his intentions impugned, and he would have been conveniently blamed for the ‘girl’s’ offending.)
– The judge indulged in further victim blaming by suggesting that the boy did not fit the law’s ‘assumption’ that ‘he doesn’t know about these things’.
– The judge bent over backward to excuse the offender from responsibility by, for example, suggesting that this offender did not fit the law’s assumption that an adult female was ‘supposed to know’ (about these things). So, because the offender is female, he suggests she didn’t know the age of consent or that it was illegal to have sex with 12 year olds. Yeah right. And anyway, isn’t ignorance of the law no defence? I guess such legal principles only apply to male offenders and can be conveniently pushed aside for females.
– The word ‘victim’ was not used at all (even though the offence against the child had already been proven beyond reasonable doubt; contrast that with complainants against male offenders who are referred to as ‘victims’ before it has even been established that any offence occurred at all”¦)
– The judge contrasted the case with those of male offenders against under-age ‘complainants’. According to the judge, those cases were different because they were ‘really very little short of rape’, involved grooming and were ‘more likely’ to involve older offenders. (Well, under the law because the boy was not legally able to give consent, this female offender’s behaviour is defined as rape. It’s simply beyond belief that a judge would imply that her offence was not rape.)
– Incredibly, the judge admitted that he had sentenced a male offender who had committed a similar offence that was ‘really very little short of rape’ (i.e. involved a willing younger participant without force) to 7 years in prison. I guess the judge saw it as something that could earn him extra brownie points from feminists who would already be applauding his efforts to excuse a woman’s criminal behaviour.
– The judge stated that ‘assistance rather than punishment’ was required for the offender in this case and sentenced her to 9 months supervision for unlawful sexual connection (that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years and that any male first offender could expect at least a couple of years prison or home detention for). The 9 months supervision, which means popping in to see the probation officer every couple of weeks, also included punishment for two unrelated thefts committed by the offender whilst on bail. Um, what?
– The judge described the case as ‘one of the more extraordinary cases’ he had come across. Well, really; perhaps it is unusual for a sexual complaint against a female to be taken seriously enough by families to report to police, and for police to take seriously enough to put before a judge, but the dynamics and details in this case were little different from the majority of sexual offending cases against young adolescents.
– The judge was ‘troubled’ by other delinquent behaviour from this female offender, particularly crimes she committed ‘since being charged’ for the sexual offence, i.e. whilst on bail. But, simply and only because this offender was female, the judge was clearly not troubled enough to see her accurately as a young, self-entitled criminal whose behaviour showed her to be unremorseful and an ongoing threat to society.
Can we find examples of Courts dealing more harshly with a male sexual offender? Oh look, surprise, surprise, here’s one in the paper just two days later. Who would have thought?
The case involved a 21-year-old male offender who ‘hooked up’ with an ‘under-age victim’ and had sex with her, after corresponding with her over Facebook and text messaging. Let’s look at how differently this case was dealt with.
– The complainant is referred to as a victim.
– The victim’s age is not given, suggesting she was probably a sexually developed young woman close to the age of consent. The age difference between him and the victim may have been only a year or two more than that between the female offender and her 12yo victim (actually lover who, because he was male, wasn’t seen as a victim).
– Although ‘there was no suggestion of coercion in the offending’ no specific mention is made that the girl was actually a willing participant, yet that is what ‘no suggestion of coercion’ means. Despite her willing participation, there is no effort by anyone to blame the victim (and I’m not suggesting there should be) or to hold the victim in any way responsible for her participation.
– There was no indication that the offender had allowed the victim to drink alcohol with him or that he even knew she was under-age, yet he was convicted of ‘grooming’ her for illegal sex simply by being friendly and suggesting they get together.
– There was good evidence the offender was remorseful and there is no indication that he engaged in other criminal offending whilst on bail. Yet the judge ordered an assessment for home detention, i.e. a prison sentence to be served at home, and he made it clear that imprisonment in prison was still a possible outcome.
– The article emphasized that the offender was given his first ‘3-strikes warning’ when that wasn’t mentioned for the female offender. If this young man makes the mistake of communicating with (i.e. ‘grooming’, because he is male) any young female who presents herself as older than she is, he will be sentenced more harshly than would be a thug or gang member who viciously beat and robbed someone.
We shall see what sentence this young man gets. I am happy to take bets that his sentence will be much, much more severe than that for the woman who f***ed a 12-year-old boy after allowing him to drink alcohol. Any takers for my bet? (“¦except the sentencing judge and anyone associated with him, for obvious reasons!)
While we’re here, let’s consider a couple of other interesting news articles from the perspective of aware men. Here’s one about female police officer Claire Stewart; she is in fact the Gisborne police prosecutor. She emailed well-known columnist Steve Braunias as follows: ‘You’re not the most handsome of men, but what a beautiful mind and heart you have.’ The news article focuses mainly on the subsequent, increasingly abusive email interchanges between the two including Claire Stewart calling Steve ‘an ugly f***er’. She then self-righteously complained to Steve’s newspaper about his language and he was sacked! What the article totally failed to recognize was that Ms Stewart’s original comment, if similarly made by a male against a woman, would be considered sexual harassment. Any woman sexually harassed in that way would be immediately excused for her unconstrained verbal response to the harasser. Given Ms Stewart’s demonstrated propensity to complain, if a fellow male cop or man from any other agency she interacted with had made such patronizing and insulting comments about her unattractive appearance you can bet this would have resulted in an immediate complaint of harassment. It’s exactly that kind of thing that, when male cops did it to female colleagues or members of the public, led to demands that our police force ‘change its culture’. But when a female police officer does it, nobody recognizes it as harassment, the police simply investigate her for unauthorized use of their email system, and the victim of her harassment is sacked for responding in anger. (Incidently, isn’t it ironic that our male police officers are being back-stabbed by feminists, after those police so stridently devoted themselves to the role of knights in shining armour rescuing damsels, arresting the man or ordering him to leave his home even when the woman is the violent offender, excusing women for most offending and where this seems impossible laying the most lenient charges available. They will probably still miss the lesson to be learned from this.)
Paula Bennett, Minister of Social Development, announced an enquiry into why numerous government agencies failed to protect a 9yo girl from horrific physical abuse even though they were involved with the family. We can already predict some of the reasons, and we can further predict that those reasons will be mostly covered up in any enquiry. They include: over confidence in the mother’s safety because she was female, unscientific risk assessments, excessive focus on investigating and harassing fathers, e.g. for trivial, non-violent breaches of protection orders placed on them even though they were never violent, and the degree to which those agencies now focus on investigations into mild, non-abusive physical punishment because it is now illegal.
And here’s a female who fraudulently obtained $33,445 worth of DPB payments. She was hammered in Court with 4 months community detention (i.e. having to keep to curfews for a maximum of 84 hours per week) and 150 hours of community work. That’s a pretty good hourly rate mostly for sleeping and watching tv at home; for women, crime does seem to pay quite well.
Here’s a news article about firefighters who risked their lives going into a burning house that was in the process of collapsing, because they thought a woman and her children were still inside. The gender of the brave firefighters was not considered worth mentioning (because they were males).
Similarly, this article expressing concern about the high number of farm deaths totally failed to mention the gender composition of those deaths, or that the vast majority (some years all) of those deaths are suffered by men in the process of their work roles.
Happy servitude.
None of this should surprise.
Frequently the media refer to men of, say between 17 and 19 years, as simply ‘men’, whereas women are ‘young women’ (i.e. vulnerable) when it comes to accountability and responsibility; and the same ‘men’ then becoming ‘teenagers’ or ‘youth’ when a more derogatory descriptor is required.
Consider the ‘boy racer’ label, (many of whom are decided woman-like in appearance).
Han’s I feel your skills are wasted here (on this site).
Your very well detailed essays should be front-page on every media, exposing the emotional and sexually discriminatory fraud being committed through out our society.
Comment by One Man's Perspective — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 6:50 am
Take a further example, in the media just over the last few days:
Auckland Grammar dumps NCEA , largely because
It has been well documented that NCEA is failing boys, with there being double-digit gaps between the results of um, young vulnerable women, and er, boys. Girls are leaving boys in the educational gutters, and here we have one school trying to do something about it.
The fact that Education Minister Anne Tolley has backed Auckland Grammar’s decision to offer its students Cambridge exams instead of internal assessment, saying she’s pro-choice, is a miricle in itself.
Refer to Tolley defends school’s move towards exams
Yes, even the Education Minister acknowledges NCEA is failing boys.
The enter stage left, the hire-a-femi-crowd, demanding ‘Sack Auckland Grammar board’. Their arguments center around the “brazen attack on the credibility of the NCEA”, and are made by
Ms Gainsford, president of the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association;
Wellington Girls’ College principal and Secondary Principals’ Council chairwoman Julia Davidson;
both make a scathing attack in defence of NCEA (under which girls excel), including labelling the Cambridge system as “colonial” (in otherwords, historic, apatriarchal and mysogynistic).
Well as feminists, they would defend NCEA. It favours girls, ignores boys, and is already clearly resulting in many, many boys failing at school, not making it to university, and ultimately ending up on the vocational scrapheap of society.
Even Samuel Marsden College principal Jenny Williams “fully supported NCEA”; She would. Samuel Marsden College is an elite girls college that outperforms most schools at NCEA.
Surely, especially the president of the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association and also the Secondary Principals’ Council chairwoman , rather than simply defend NCEA, no matter what the impact on our boys, should both be openly acknowledging that NCEA is seriously failing boys, and proactively seeking to address the imbalance?
Comment by One Man's Perspective — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 7:17 am
One of the interesting aspects of this is the inability of judges to see male and female defendants equally – something seems to completely upset their rationale as soon as the word ‘she’ is introduced.
A similar mental disruption occurs with regard to prostitutes. They are essentially similar to drug dealers, in that they willingly supply weak people satisfaction for their addictive tendencies, and they do it solely because it is easy money, regardless of the harm it does – yet the judiciary is more inclined to call them “victims”, and to label the people they exploit as “offenders” – a complete reversal of the position taken with drug dealers. There can be no doubt that the only influence operating is that of gender, and yet notice the power of this force to turn moral judgment on its ear. It really reduces judgments from the bench into meaningless nonsense.
Garbage such as that spilled by the judge in this female on male rape of a minor further demonstrates how well justified anyone would be in having no confidence whatsoever that our courts are capable of thinking – and judging – rationally.
Comment by rc — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 9:56 am
As long as the subjects Hans addresses are verboten in mainstream media, he is decidedly not wasted here.
What his posts demonstrate is the true nature of establishment media – and it isn’t to present all relevant news in a balanced and impartial manner. Sites like this do a far better job of that.
Comment by rc — Mon 24th January 2011 @ 10:27 am
Contrast the way our courts handle female sex offenders with U.S. courts. In a similar case there, a mother of 3 who plied her daughter’s school-friends with alcohol prior to having sex with them was jailed for 10 years:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349988/Mother-jailed-10-years-sleeping-daughter-s-schoolfriends.html
This from a country where the pussy pass is even more at play than it is here. The problem of female pedophiles appears to finally be getting taken seriously there, after decades of cases being swept under the carpet and victims being dismissed with “of course they must have enjoyed it”.
It’s a pity the sentencing is so harsh – I hate to see such punitive attitudes towards a crime when it is difficult to rationally gauge how much harm is really done – but this is the real inequity of the pussy pass. If women are not being subjected to the same punishments that they are happy to see inflicted on men, then they have no incentive to be realistic when assessing a crime and formulating its punishment. The discussion around sex offending has been emotional feminine hyperbole for so long now that it’s hardly surprising the legal treatment of it is bereft of any sense of proportion. Punishing females with the same severity they demand of men is the only way to force them to be real – it parallels the solution to two people fighting over how to cut a cake where whoever makes the cut must defer to the other’s choice (ie those who make law should be subjected to it to make them show good judgment).
Comment by rc — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 3:22 am
Excellent points rc. If women were treated equally to men for similar offending that would most certainly act as a humane constraint on legislation. Punishment for crimes more likely to be committed by men has steadily increased in part because those demanding such increases did not think of how they would feel giving the same sentences to female offenders. So we now have the silly situation where gentle, respectful sexual activity with a physically mature, fully willing teenager under 16 (even if she looks older and misrepresents herself as such) attracts a maximum punishment of 20 years imprisonment whereas someone who, intending to injure, ‘wounds, maims, disfigures or causes grievous bodily harm’ to another faces a maximum of 7 years’ imprisonment. (And I am not suggesting there should be no punishment for illegal sexual behaviour, or indeed that minors should not be protected from adults regarding sexual activity.)
And wasn’t that a key demand of feminism, that women be treated as equals rather than patronized as weaker, inferior beings needing special provisions? Yet, predictably, “equality” really only meant equal advantages not responsibilities. So we hear a deafening silence from the feminists concerning ongoing inequalities that always favoured women. For example allowing women to kill children with little punishment under “infanticide” that applies only to women, and for the “male assaults female” offence providing double the punishment than any woman can face for exactly the same violence against a man.
By highlighting the Pussy Pass, the double standard almost always shown in dealing with female versus male offenders, we are in fact being good feminists, honouring women as equals.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:01 pm
Thanks OMP. It is surprising how resistant mainstream media have been to men’s voices and indeed to any voices of reason in the area of gender politics. In many cases I am sure it’s editorial policy. For example Radio New Zealand, in most ways a superb broadcasting service, lets itself down by promoting almost exclusively feminist viewpoints on matters relevant to men, and by ignoring men’s movement spokesmen. I have repeatedly offered to be available to provide a perspective from the men’s and fathers’ movement, necessary if their journalists are to achieve a balanced exploration of many issues, but they have never contacted me. Very rarely will they interview any representatives of the men’s movement, and I believe this is their policy: to give preference to feminist ideology which is seen as the fashionable viewpoint likely to achieve most market support. Of course, media are foolish in this commercially; men’s movement perspectives readily arouse interest and debate and are therefore likely to increase audiences.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:27 pm
I wanted to share an article that says female crime has increased 36% and they want more female police officers, but I haven’t found it online.
I’m starting to see Celia Lashlie’s words come into play for she wrote years ago that women will get harsher sentences when we have female judges. AND I’ve written articles here stating men’s words, “Male judges are softer on women because of old ways….”
Perhaps it’s like Maori, Pacific Islanders and other ethnic groups putting up the cultural argument and perhaps feminism’s equality idea didn’t have such a strong hold afterall. Perhaps it was just a way to get resources for other community work?
……..
Well, as long as the men’s movement keeps putting forward arguments for men, we’ll get balance soon enough, IMO.
Comment by julie — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 12:37 pm
The following has appeared in the Daily Mail and is likely to be of interest to many here (commenting open):
“Men are increasingly the victims of ‘obnoxious bigotry’ by women and should start ‘burning their briefs’ in protest, according to a rising Tory star.
Dominic Raab, a new MP tipped for high office, said men were getting a ‘raw deal’ from the cradle to the grave following years of anti-discrimination legislation favouring women…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350128/Tory-MP-Dominic-Raab-calls-male-equality-Feminists-bigots.html
Comment by rc — Tue 25th January 2011 @ 1:16 pm
Hi Hans,
Continuing from post #4 – visit here and here.
Not just the articles linked to, but the comments which follow are mostly very encouraging.
It’s always good to see a men’s rights activist gaining political traction.
Yet this is somehow very SPECIAL.
As far as I’m aware there has NEVER before been an elected politician throughout the Anglosphere who has gone anywhere near as far as denouncing the corrupt feminist establishment as he has.
I invite you and others to do 2 things I shall be doing myself.
To give messages of support to this man and to think about how with your passion and many skills you can in some way emulate him.
There’s a second reason I write here today.
After reading The Spearhead article and wanting to post news of it here at MENZ I went looking for a category under which to post it.
The posting I wished to make is clearly POLITICAL, yet looking at the “Browse by categories” on offer I saw there were site links to
* Boys / Youth / Education
* Child Support
* Domestic Violence
* Events
* General
* Law & Courts
* Men’s Health
* Sex Abuse / CYF
What’s missing is a link to a category of *Politics.
I guess this reflects where MENZ has been in days gone by – more about consciousness raising than political activism.
But if we are to more fully enter and embrace the political phase of men’s rights activism having moved from grass roots consciousness raising then I think the time is right for such a new category to be created – *Politics.
I know it might be a a category under which any posting might be placed and so end up kind of meaningless.
However I’m thinking of a category where news specifically of political events, especially pertaining to established politicians which reflect and affect the concerns of men get posted.
Currently even as an avid reader I have to navigate all over the site to get a sketchy patchwork sense of how the political movers and shakers of NZ are reacting / responding to men’s concerns, so there’s a kind of lack of coherence there that I find personally frustrating.
I think the setting up of a *Politics category would certainly send out a strong nuanced message that things had somehow shifted and provide a place where posters could show politicians where their sentiments lay – a bit like the politics section of any online newspaper.
I shall be writing to JP to suggest the idea is worthwhile.
In the meantime I wonder what you think of this idea?
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 4:05 pm
This is a joke, right?
Edit: I will support but we’d miss you elsewhere, lol
Comment by julie — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 4:36 pm
I support that Skeptic. I see an opportunity in NZ, with a lame Labour Party trying to get some traction in the polls- they possibly could be persuaded to take on our issues. I hope John Potter has what it takes to allow a category of POLITICS.
Julie- What on earth are you wittering on about?
Comment by John Brett — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 5:55 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with the politics category Skeptik. And the article/comments you linked provide strong evidence of a fast-growing political swing. Just a couple of years ago responses from the public would have been swamped with 95% feminist indoctrination. Men were frightened to speak out so most male voices we heard were seeking feminist approval. But it’s surprising now to see the proportions almost reversed.
This is the time for political action. Whereas political action up to now has been like planting seeds in a desert, we are quickly seeing a lush growth of awareness and we need to be ready to harvest its fruits while we keep encouraging rampant growth. A political party is needed.
The politics category for posts could include all matters pertaining to the party.
The F-Word Party: Fathers, Families and Fairness.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 9:37 pm
I’m outta here and leaving it to you men. All I ask is that you be kind to people in your journey. Not everyone is as clever and well educated.
Comment by Julie — Thu 27th January 2011 @ 9:53 pm
Hey John, I just want to say that you and others were kind to me and I’m far from being as educated as y’all. Thank-you for your for kindness to me. I know you will be as kind to the other women who come here and I know many want to be here. I hope in a way you remember me, lol.
Comment by Julie — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 1:07 am
Just my personal view but I think a lobby group would be more effective than a party. Within that lobby group you get people to be active within existing political parties. You use existing structures to bring about change.
For example I am not aware of any successful parties explicitly dedicated to feminism. Yet look at how successful their lobby groups are.
Comment by Vman — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 11:25 am
Yes Vman, you’re probably right. But we need an organisation to be in people’s minds and that media will turn to for comment. If women’s groups (who specialize in dishonest propaganda), the Sensible Sentencing Trust (who rarely say anything sensible) and Louise Nicholas (who twice was found not credible in jury trials) can get media running to them every other week, surely we can achieve the same as public opinion now changes. But we need the identity.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 12:44 pm
Hans and Vman,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Very interesting.
Although I agree with the idea of political lobbying and even a MEn’s Rights Party, you guys a getting a bit ahead of me here.
All I had in mind was that MENZ have a *Politics section.
I think of it as link which I can use to read information on what political parties and grass roots political organizations are doing to advocate for men’s issues.
A sort of clearing house on political projects related to advancing NZ men’s issues you might say.
I believe such a place would achieve two important things.
It would join ‘islands into a continent’ giving an overview of many projects which currently appear disparate providing a more unified/unifying view of the general movement on men’s issues which is taking place.
This could be hugely encouraging as well as fostering networking more networking.
Also it could be a place that politicians (ever keen to understand public sentiment) go to to get a sense of what will win the men’s vote.
So in that sense it is kind of lobbying without having to trudge all the way to the local MPs office or even all the way to the Beehive.
Your thoughts people?
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 3:01 pm
Ok, due to popular demand I’ve added a new category called “Gender Politics”.
Remember, to remain on-topic Posts should only be about issues which affect men differently to women.
Comment by JohnPotter — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 4:33 pm
JP,
Wow that was quick!
Thank you!
I look forward to reading about and contributing to this new category.
I may race off and plonk something there just to say I was first 🙂
I like your definition of the category too.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 28th January 2011 @ 8:10 pm
Dear Julie- your dulcet tones will be missed. Some of us here do LOVE women, don’t go away just because of me! John Brett
Comment by John Brett — Sun 30th January 2011 @ 8:03 pm
Man run down in domestic dispute
Man goes for a walk to escape argument with partner. Female partner hunts him down, drives on to footpath and runs him over, not one, but twice.
Judge Colin Doherty remanded her on bail to April 15 for sentence and ordered a pre-sentence report to cover her suitability for home detention.
Would any judge consider sentencing a male to reside with his victim of domestic violence let alone allow him to be bailed at her residence?
Comment by Wayne — Mon 31st January 2011 @ 11:29 am
Hi JP,
I keep looking at the ‘Browse by Category’ section but no sign of any ‘Gender Politics’ section link so far.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 1st February 2011 @ 1:21 pm
NO!
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 1st February 2011 @ 1:22 pm
John B, I looked the word dulcet up and you’re too kind. It’s not about you [why I’m outa here], and I think lots of good things about you. I feel I do better without the involvement here, that’s all.
Comment by julie — Tue 1st February 2011 @ 4:58 pm
That’s because there aren’t any Posts in that category yet.
Comment by JohnPotter — Tue 1st February 2011 @ 6:54 pm
Hi JP,
Thanks for clearing that up.
I didn’t realize there had to be some posting to get the link active.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 2nd February 2011 @ 12:41 am
Put the effort in Skeptic. The “I was here, and I know’ doesn’t make for what ‘IS’. If you don’t want what happened to you to happen to others, make the commitment.
Comment by julie — Wed 2nd February 2011 @ 10:47 am
Seems I raced you to it, lol. I deleted it from my own site to place it here. Now you can build from it.
Comment by Julie — Wed 2nd February 2011 @ 11:18 am
Man dances with another woman at party.
Jealous girlfriend yells abuse at him, reducing him to tears.
They both go home and have consensual sex.
Man calls out the name of another woman during sex.
Girlfriend gets angry and becomes physically violent (hitting, punching, kicking).
Man restrains girlfriend.
When she won’t stop he slaps her several times and leaves.
Girlfriend falsely accuses him of rape and lies about details of him physically assaulting her.
Man spends 8 months in custody on remand.
Girlfriend finally admits to lying about being raped.
Man convicted of two assault charges and remanded for sentencing however may not associate with woman.
Earlier story 2nd Feb
Today’s Story 3rd Feb
No mention is made of the girlfriend’s violence towards the man nor the consequences to the man of the false rape allegations.
Compare this story to the one posted above at post#7 where the violent female offender is bailed to the residence of her male victim.
Comment by Wayne — Thu 3rd February 2011 @ 1:14 pm
this is in ozzie..
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/trashing-partners-home-understandable-magistrate-to-scorned-woman-20110207-1aisa.html?from=smh_ft
Comment by karan jiharr — Mon 7th February 2011 @ 1:40 pm
The article itself is better imo. Not sure if you saw the link.
Comment by Julie — Mon 7th February 2011 @ 3:57 pm
Can anyone believe this???? A woman being charged with rape ????
Couple face rape charges
Jason Lloyd Jones, 38, and his partner Maureen Samantha Iti, 32, are accused of luring young women into their vehicles and …..
Jones and Iti are jointly charged with three counts of sexual violation by rape and one of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection ….
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8791534/couple-face-rape-charges/
Comment by Wayne — Mon 7th February 2011 @ 4:41 pm
Hi Wayne, I couldn’t find this info on the net, so it’s just hearsay still. (unless someone else knows about it). Anyways, I heard they changed the law a few years back to include females as rapists. I was told they had to do it because they needed a law to protect females from lesbians drugging them and raping them.
Comment by julie — Mon 7th February 2011 @ 5:30 pm
No doubt she’ll be found to have been led astray by the man; that she was an unwilling participant who operated solely in fear of the man;
Comment by One man's Perspective — Mon 7th February 2011 @ 7:35 pm
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/02/07/on-march-1st-2011-men-will-speak-like-you-have-never-heard-them-before”
Here is a link to an upcoming weekly radio show that starts March 1st.
Readers might like to listen to it as it is from one of the leading Men’s Rights Activists Paul Elam whose web blog – A voice for Men has been very popular for a number of years.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 8th February 2011 @ 11:20 am
Good on you for sharing this. I just heard a relationship has got off the ground between single parent work and men’s work. That’s sooo cool. I wasn’t able to do that and am settling for a beautiful man offline and away from my single parent group. (no sex yet but it’s deep) I must start helping our men get into relationships for I was reminded that I am not helping our men and they are definitely worthwhile men. [single parents]
I wish Paul all the best. He’s dedicated and I love seeing people feel that way about something. Hopefully we’ll start to see an effect in America and it will dripple down to NZ.
Comment by Julie — Tue 8th February 2011 @ 1:13 pm
Another amazing man to watch is Glenn Sacks.
Comment by Julie — Tue 8th February 2011 @ 1:20 pm
Only 9 more days to go.
Then we get a weekly program that DOESN’T perpetuate western misandry.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 20th February 2011 @ 5:27 am
STOP! READ THIS: You want to learn how to receive MASSIVE TARGETED TRAFFIC from free sources and earn big money?! Watch this video carefully and see how I got more than 577,000 visitors/day to a NEW website within 7 days! You can send this traffic to every link you want (Website, YouTube video, Affiliate Link, etc.!)! CHECK THIS VIDEO OUT: http://bit.ly/GetMassiveTargetedTraffic – You won’t regret it! Trust me.
Comment by Woodrow Swoyer — Sat 21st April 2012 @ 7:24 am