Some Real Analysis of the Jamie Ginns Story
The violent rampage and suicide of Jamie Ginns over the weekend was extensively covered in the media, but coverage was generally trite and failed to highlight the important issues. Bystanders were asked to desribe the various scenes of mayhem and police were repeatedly challenged about why it took them so long to identify Ginns as a suspect in the first assault on the night of Friday 2nd December. Media probed whether Ginns had a criminal history and when they eventually found out that he did they became very excited.
The fact that there was a protection order in place against Ginns wasn’t mentioned anywhere until on Monday morning the head of Women’s Refuge, Heather Henare, referred to it on Radio New Zealand. Henare as usual took the opportunity to speak about domestic violence in gender-specific terms as though only men ever commit it and only women ever suffer from it, beat up the issue as much as she could and of course called for ongoing funding for her organisation, but as usual she failed to discuss anything that might improve realistic understanding or management of this or other violence. Other media hardly noticed the issue of the protection order but Radio New Zealand did play a short comment from Jill Proudfoot from ‘Shine’, an organization that deals with family violence, telling us that Protection Orders won’t always keep a victim safe. Proudfoot actually stated that when applied against people who had little regard for the law, “a protection order is no use whatsoever and sometimes even escalates the situation”. That seemed a rare piece of wisdom, but unfortunately Ms Proudfoot went on to say that “you have to judge really carefully when you’re talking to the woman whether a protection order is what she really needs”, showing her assumption that domestic violence is only ever done to women and therefore showing she isn’t a whole lot wiser or more honest than most others working the domestic violence industry.
By the time the story became yesterday’s news no further useful analysis had appeared in our media. A lone story in the Herald on Tuesday 6th December brought us journalist Nikki Preston’s insightful discovery that Ginns was a ‘nut case’ and a ‘real troublemaker’, but still made no mention at all of the protection order or the can of worms that raises.
So let’s just open the can a bit. Because no appropriate research has ever been commissioned, we don’t know to what extent protection orders protect anyone. There’s the first wriggly little worm. This is draconian legislation that without any defended trial or reasonable level of proof removes fundamental rights such as the right to free movement in the community, the right to free speech and the right to occupy the property one owns, and further that damages relationships between parents and their children. Yet the state that has imposed this travesty of justice did not even bother to ensure that its effects would be measured.
The second wriggly little worm sneaking out of the can is the possibility that protection orders actually increase risk. Certainly, since this male-bashing legislation has been in place there is little indication that domestic violence has reduced; instead we constantly hear Heather Henare and others complaining about how much worse it is and how much more money they need. To me, it’s obvious that protection orders’ cavalier attacks on people’s liberties and relationships with their children are likely to increase tension, anger and outbursts. Preventing couples in conflict from communicating cannot be expected to assist in resolving or even defusing the problems. For people most at risk of violence from their partners, a protection order is quite likely to tip that partner over the edge. The emotional threats are huge, the biggest one (but only one of many) being that the protection order will restrict that parent’s contact with his/her children to a demeaning supervised situation for a short time each fortnight. I have long stated my belief that protection orders might be useful to partners who were never at much risk at all, in ‘protecting’ them from the discomfort of hearing the other partner’s complaints and appeals about being ditched and robbed. For people truly at high risk of being violently attacked, the protection order can only increase the risk of violence. Even if the violent partner is sent to jail under the protection order’s provisions, sooner or later (s)he will get out of jail.
A third wriggly worm slithers right into the foundations of protection order laws. They were based on the unscientific Duluth fantasy that most domestic violence arises from men trying to maintain patriarchal power and control over their wives and children. If that were true, then protection orders may well have worked. But we know it isn’t true in all but a tiny proportion of cases. Usually, domestic violence arises out of relationship conflict in which both partners feel emotionally threatened to a degree that sees them behave irrationally towards each other. Protection-order legislation as it currently stands was never designed to deal with what domestic violence really is, only what feminists imagined it might be.
Many other worms slither in the can. Simply speaking though, time and time again we see protection orders failing to do what was hoped of them. Yet time and time again media refuse to explore this and domestic violence industry spokespeople refuse to admit it. Jamie Ginns was just another example.
Thanks Hans.
Another sensible posting to challenge the prevailing nonsense.
Well done.
I have a couple of points to add to your post.
You say –
I think that’s true.
However I think the rort goes deeper than that.
For by now it’s patently obvious that any time someone from the feminist organization NZ Women’s Refuge is invited into a radio or TV studio they’re inevitably going to self promote with overinflated domestic violence ‘statistics’ which ignore male victims.
So it’s a form of advertising granted gratis by sympathetic media folks like Lynn Freeman (ironic name that!).
You also say –
Actually, I think that’s an overly generous assessment.
I know for a fact having been close by at the inception of Living without Violence programs in NZ that the Duluth model posits ALL men as maintaining power and control over their wives and children.
As it also doesn’t acknowledge female violence and male victims it paints a very bigoted picture of ALL domestic violence as an expression of patriarchy bar none – period. Indeed one could summarize their polemic as ALL violence is patriarchy.
A great shame taxpayers dollars are being wasted upon such radio bile and misguided socially hostile agencies, but that’s how plain ridiculous these tax-siphoning fruitcakes are.
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 6th December 2011 @ 9:59 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Skeptic (#1). Yes, the constant propaganda and marketing is evident. There is a genuine problem to address with women subjected to violence (usually drunken or drugged violence), at its most serious the problem is more frequent for women than men (but that doesn’t mean male victimization should be denied), and I’m sure many in Women’s Refuge are genuinely trying to help. However, without honesty, fairness and acknowledgement of the complexities involved, and without using accurate models based on good research, little positive outcome is likely.
I agree too with your description of the development of dv programmes. Even now, I understand that people forced into those programmes often without any good evidence they were ever violent are taught about all the ways they are violent without knowing it and/or how they assert power and control just because they are men. Ironically, this is done using truly abusive power and control by forcing people into the indoctrination centres under threat of imprisonment, by man-blaming facilitators verbally and emotionally manipulating or bludgeoning participants into submission, and by requiring participants to show agreement with the feminist ideology under threat of a ‘did not cooperate’ report card that also carries the threat of imprisonment. Hey, but none of that ever seems to be discussed in the media either! What happened to the free press and its responsibility to inform and to protect the public?
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 6th December 2011 @ 11:37 pm
i think you have shown great insensitivity by jumping on the bandwagon to push your own agenda something you accuse others of
Comment by michelle mckay — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 9:40 pm
Michelle,
I think you’re the one who’s shown great insensitivity by pushing your agenda of trying to guilt trip guys into silence.
BTW – you’re exhibiting a fine example of code Orange.
Comment by Skeptic — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 10:36 pm
Thanks for sharing your opinion michelle mckay (#3):
Unfortunately, there is no bandwagon to jump on. But it’s way past time that we start one.
Also, I am not touting for more money, simply raising awarness that is sadly lacking. If our journalists were doing it then we wouldn’t have to here. Sorry that the awareness is uncomfortable.
Also, it’s not my agenda. This isn’t a business plan, nor is it an attempt to manipulate and mislead the public. So I don’t agree that I’m doing what I accuse others of.
People everywhere think about and discuss matters in the news. Is that an insensitive thing to do? Every journalist who covers a tragedy and every spokesperson who analyses it beyond simple offerings of sympathy may be seen as insensitive.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 10:44 pm
Actually Skeptic (#4), I’m not sure it quite fits Code Orange. Certainly, it is a shaming tactic as the Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics describes having the general aim:
But michelle’s version may show yet another category, that of accusing the man of insensitivity, impoliteness, social impropriety or irresponsibility for expressing a male perspective. Code Peach perhaps?
It is a very helpful list to refer to in order to expose ad hominem arguments.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 7th December 2011 @ 11:16 pm
Yeah, Hans (#6) code orange isn’t quite accurate as you say.
It was the closest fit I could find.
I think the color of sour grapes would be more apt –
a sort of shitty feminist purple color.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 12:07 am
@Skeptik and Hans – Is there a code plaid?
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 12:26 am
By the way Hans,
It’s perfectly true what you say – if the media were doing their jobs properly instead of being complacent you wouldn’t need to make such commentary.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 12:33 am
Actually, Hans, if I recall correctly, there are considerable references to studeis concerning the efficacy and consequences of restraining orders. I’ll see if I can find them. Generally, since most if not almost all restraining orders in the US are issued against a husband during divorce (approx one-million per year in the US), they are obviously a tool used to get at least temporary custody and an upper hand for the woman (mother) in a divorce. These unnecessary restraining orders distract law enforcement and other critical resources from people (including men) in real need of and who might really benefit from a restraining order. Furthermore, restraining orders, far from preventing violence, actively promote it by introducing adversary and hostility where there previously was none. Like many irrational actions by women, the restraining order is used as a preemptive strike, but usually ends up promoting and causing the problem that the women claim to have been trying to preempt. So really, I do not believe the female beneficiary of a restraining order ever really feels threatened – it’s more of an expression of irrational and implacable hostility. Especially given the heavy-handed and irrational way in which most restraining orders are interpreted by law enforcement. The restraining order, which denies a man many Constitutional rights while he is under it, is even worse when it is interpreted and acted upon in such extreme ways by law enforcement. I recall studies that compare incidence of violence during divorce with and without restraining orders, considering variables like whether or not the subject of the restraining order has ever had a history of violence. It’s been a long time since I reviewed information concerning restraining orders so this is a good time for me to do that again. I’m sure you and others are aware of the irrational nature of restraining orders, but just in case there are some currently on this site who are not, this is a good time to review them and why they are more than worthless but actively destructive. A restraining order issued in 2006 against late night talk show host David Letterman in New York for a woman in New Mexico who believed he was sending her psychic messages of love through her television is an example of the ridiculous excuses that characterize most restraining orders. We do know that almost all restraining orders are issued against men and that those restraining orders are issued without any evidence of any real physical violence by the man against whom they were issued. Since women are responsible for most domestic violence, as shown conclusively in many objective scientific studies, then way too many restraining orders are issued against men or way too few against women. Restraining orders are just an expression of a woman’s manipulation of the public with the spectacle of her chronic victimhood and they do much more to hurt innocent men than to help any women (or men) who really needs protection. Restraining orders are a tool of a true fascist government, which creates a problem where none previously existed and then uses the resulting problems from application of that tool for expanded legislation that will be used to oppress a population. The fascist government creates the problem by exploiting the chronic victimhood of women and then justifies the expansion of their interference and oppression with the problem it created and the problem escalates from there. There are some great references in the Bible to this problem of alpha males manipulating women at the expense of other men and where it will lead.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 1:14 am
To discuss the protection order issue you need to address the facts about THAT situation rather than what the media are publishing which is about an attempted murder-suicide. All that’s happened so far is a slagging debate that has achieved nothing. The question Ms Proudfoot raised is a valid one and I think your assumption is wrong. Was this an old protection order that had existed for some time? Was it a recent protection order and at what stage in the process was it. I may be wrong here but I understand police can now issue a form of protection order, so was this a court order or a police order. This may be the reluctance to discuss the issue as it may have been the police response that evoked the outcome. Were their children involved in this case and if not then that alters the discussion because that is not the provocation. Were either or both drug users and maintained a relationship other than as former partners. I saw in one media broadcast that the suicide took place in an area the man hunted in. Has the protection order resulted in the loss of his firearms? Did this provoke revenge? A piece of paper offers no more protection to its owner than a uniform does to a policeman, so the question remains and will remain until it is investigated. Was it the best thing to do? The reason I defend this point of view is that the excessively practiced use of protection orders in family court cases for the purpose of gaining the upper hand for the woman’s outcome is to my mind hog tying the debate on domestic violence. How can anyone expect domestic violence outcomes to improve when the only approach is to hit it with a big stick and demand more money? I do support your point about the women’s refuge response -to demand more money to solve the problem. So why didn’t Henare raise the protection order issue if she was genuine about curbing domestic violence. But we are assuming there was a protection order in place because of one statement made by the domestic violence industry. Was that fact or just marketing for donations? From a media view the point what you are trying to raise is not news it is opinion and in order to encourage a journalist to pursue this you need to frame the debate in the right direction. It would be news if the protection order was the catalyst for the shooting. Are police now issuing protection orders and will this happen again soon?
Comment by Down Under — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 10:25 am
Daryl X,
Let me see if I can precis what you’re saying.
A shorthand way of saying could be to say that women often use false accusations of domestic violence to get restraining orders as a form of violence.
The irony isn’t lost on us either.
The nation state in turn requires the female to provide NO ACTUAL PROOF of male initiated domestic violence having occurred in order to issue a restraining order –
I suppose that’s where you’re fascist label comes in.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 10:26 am
Down Under,
Open any newspaper or news website and you’ll see an editorial and several opinion pieces.
It all falls under the rubric of ‘news’ so no need for the semantics differentiating news from opinion.
Hans’ opinion (and yours) IS news to me.
You raise some interesting questions regarding this case and domestic violence in general, which any journalist worth their salt should be raising.
I don’t expect feminist journalists to opening that can of worms soon though.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 10:38 am
Hi Darryl X, in the absence of Government research about the effectiveness of Protection Orders, I tried a simple analysis, based on Government published statistics.
SubmissionRegardingNzDomesticViolenceAct
protection-orders-the-quantitative-figures/
My conclusion was that it appeared that the DV Act saved on average about 0.5 person per year in domestic homicides, but with a cost in driven suicides of perhaps 50+ per year, mainly men, some children and a few women possibly too.
The submission quotes references, and extensive passages (so that you can make your own evaluation).
Skeptiks comment #9 – spot on!
Although these statistics are not 50% men 50% women, the issues do affect both as “winners” and “losers”. The statistics shouldn’t be the issue – we should judge each individual case on its merits. The judges oath actually says this!!!!!!!
It seems that women’s violence is increasing and also men’s perjury too. Thus it is more important than ever that our institutions make decisions on the individual facts and not lazy prejudices and overview statistics. We too must do this, if we want to take these arguments forward.
Thanks, MurrayBacon – mere axe murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 11:50 am
@skeptic 13
So you access some form of commercial media product and cannot differentiate between news, opinion, gossip and advertising. You’ve got a problem. You want to redefine words to suit your argument, that’s an ever bigger problem – that’s a bad feminist trait – code what. But apart from that I said “from a media point of view” (not yours) and that needs perspective not bitching if you are hoping to one day open your news source and see an article about protection orders.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 1:02 pm
@Down Under – I introduced the term “fascist” to describe our government in the way it is applying restraining orders to oppress men because most restraining orders are issued by courts against men for women but women are responsible for most domestic violence and not men. That’s the logic I used to deduce something in response to a thought by Hans about the lack of any published research (which I agree with him that there isn’t much) showing whether or not protection orders really protect anyone.
Since most restraining orders are issued against men for benefit of women even though women are responsible for most domestic violence then I would expect the proportion of restraining orders to reflect the proportion of men and women against whom restraining orders are issued if the implementation of restraining orders was not being abused. So, in response to the thought by Hans, even though incidence and proportion of the sexes responsible for domestic violence is not a direct measure of restraining orders, that the proportions them and who gets restraining orders should reflect one another, I conclude they are not helping many people (men and women) and hurting more (men).
The thought by a “MB mere axe murderer” about suicides is relevant and one I had not considered in terms of the harm which restraining orders are doing and a way by which fascist governments are trying to oppress and do away with men. I want to find the references I had before and consult them because there are some really interesting ideas in them which I had not thought of and which escape me now but would really contribute to an understanding of restraining orders and just how worthless they are and even destructive. And it’s this conclusion based upon those publications that have really influenced my thinking about them being more a political tool of oppression by a fascist government rather than for actually increasing security of someone.
“Any society that would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither and will give up both.” (Benjamin Franklin wrote that and I always think he must have had something exactly like restraining orders in mind). Yeah, Skeptik, I think your post sums up my thoughts – restraining orders = fascism = violence. I do not think there are any publications that rely upon objective application of the Scientific Method which show that restraining orders protect anyone, just oppress.
If a woman gets a restraining order and a man wants to hurt her, a restraining order isn’t going to stop him. All it’s gonna do is enable the woman’s manipulation of others with the public spectacle of her chronic victimhood and instigate and anger the man and promote violence by him because he has already had his Constituional rights suspended for doing nothing wrong so what’s the point in not NOT doing something wrong if he’s gonna be punished anyway for his innocence.
I understand that in some reasonable jurisdictions of the US (not many) that an attempt at circumventing this problem is achieved by issuing a restraining order against the woman AND the man if one applies. Not a perfect solution but it does discourage the woman from making frivolous claims understanding that she will have denied herself the same Constitutional rights that she is seeking to have taken away from the man. Still, the whole concept of restraining orders is hogwash and should be eliminated. Like child support, restraining orders as part of the domestic violence industry is an example of a government bureaucracy that can never be administered responsibly and must be eliminated.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 2:19 pm
Down under,
Newsflash – opinions as well as facts are news . Simple. Duh.
Instead of venting your frustrations on me and reaching for a semantic pissing contest, try attacking the problem – the lace curtain.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 2:28 pm
@Darryl X
I think fascism is the wrong word. Governments in this respect are not fascist per se. They are irresponsible. By that I mean they pass legislation promoted by pressure groups, and take no responsibility for the outcomes however you wish to describe them. This has consequences that are first ignored and then actively suppressed. Male suicide is an excellent example, as is the economic consequences of family courts and poverty. This is where the media enters and stops doing its job – for commercial reasons and or persuasive reasons and then we are left with irresponsibility upon irresponsibility. So we could go on. I have made the point before that the outcome of this throughout society is not to aspire to be better but to accept that what I did wrong is only about as bad as the next person. The devolving society. Call it fascism and the likely response you’ll get is – no this is not fascism Mussolini was a fascist. The most successful part of the feminist agenda is that it exists without government and in that respect I would say it is closer to anarchism than fascism in its implementation. I don’t disagree that in time it will be given a capital ‘F’ and take its place in history as a fascist doctrine. That doesn’t solve anyone’s problem or stop people profiting from failure. The only people who should profit from failure are liquidators but we have let it become a lifestyle. The only way we will ever stop that if it is all possible is explain it, in understandable language, until enough people accept that there is an alternative. Of course if you can’t get your head around the fact that news and opinion are different things, and I’m skeptical that some people ever will, you won’t understand how media functions. If we stopped redefining words we would start speaking the same language again instead of just using the same words.
Comment by Down Under — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 3:36 pm
Down Under,
Of course if you can’t get your head around the fact that opinions and facts both constitute news then I’m definitely a Skeptic.
I don’t hear anyone simplistically equating feminism with 1930s- 1940s style fascism.
To infer such is to jump to insult rather than to have listened.
The similarities between historical fascism and modern day feminism are are glaringly obvious and chilling to many of us – even when taking into account that there were several different strands of fascism as well.
Just e-mail Angry Harry or Paul Elam for instance and ask them!
What remains coherent amongst all forms of fascism is the creation of a supposedly superior race which supposedly rises up from being oppressed to take it’s exalted place as the pinnacle of humanity and inferior groups – Jews, Gypsy, Slavs etc who are to be worked then disposed of.
In all cases the state is used as a legal and paramilitary force to crush dissent and carry out the program of destruction and propaganda necessary to ensue continuation of doctrinaire belief.
The ‘superior’ group also see warfare with dissenting nations as a legitimate way to create group solidarity.
No prizes for guessing which social group, male or female, feminism holds up as superior and which group as inferior and therefore less worthy of support – disposable.
One more thing lest the litmus test of fascism’s existence be rendered down to simplistic and literal notions of concentration camps, gas chambers and night rallies – fascism has ‘matured’ and become much more sophisticated. There’s no need for the simple methods of control used in the 30s and 40s – just ask Daryl X to explain it to you. I’m sure as an aware USA citizen he can spell out the way fascism works there. He’d probably like to meet you to explain it all to you in person too, that is if he could get his passport back from the ‘brownshirts’ to escape his prison-nation state too.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 7:20 pm
Here’s a dose of the state sponsored femifascism I was referring to –
talk about propaganda and creating brownshirts everywhere. Holy shit!
Keep a barf bag handy.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 8th December 2011 @ 9:29 pm
re post #19 – OMG I think my head’s gonna explode.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 12:12 am
@Down Under – I have conceded many times on this site that I do not like terminology and names, including “fascism”. After considerable review I concluded that “fascism” is the best word to describe feminism and all its evil machinations.
I also like the term “malignant narcissism”. Although I agree that “irresponsible” is a great word to describe feminists, I do not believe it is sufficient to cover all the elements of fascism.
“Irresponsibility” to me at least implies that feminists satisfy their addiction to power and control passively by just not being responsible and I understand that their pursuit is much more active.
From Wikipedia: “What constitutes… fascism… is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets.”
I disagree completely with your argument that feminism exists without government and that it is anarchy. Just the opposite, feminism relies upon a strong and omnipotent government that it can manipulate and integrate for its nefarious ends: death, enslavement, incarceration, impoverishment and exile of men. Feminism is the antithesis of anarchy. I think what we as men should aspire to is in fact a greater degree of anarchy: less government.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 1:02 am
@Down Under – It’s probably best to write that I selected “fascism” to describe feminism not because it is the best word, but that all the other options were less inadequate than it (note the double negative). For instance, “oligarchy” is rule by the few so that doesn’t work as feminists are many – half the population. However, I agree with you that terminology and names are important, as much as I can’t stand them, for creating a common lexicon that men may use to communicate and share their experiences and promote solidarity and defeat feminism. Just please don’t use “anarchy” to describe feminism. That is a word that is kind of sentimental for me and I have reserved it for men and their movement away from feminism. Can any other word but “anarchy” describe MGTOW? LOL
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 1:15 am
@Skeptik – Are you aware of a good lexicon or reference that men can consult for feminism and all its evil machinations?
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 1:22 am
I agree with your conclusion that – ‘fascism’ is the best word to describe feminism and all its evil machinations.
For a long time I didn’t really get what you were driving at, nor want to accept it. However that’s because I had in my head images of full blown nazi fascism around the time of the concentration camps, gas chambers and mass graves.
Yet it’s become clearer as I’ve read about pre WW2 Nazism, present day conditions for men throughout westernized nations and thought about it a great deal – that modern feminism is chillingly far too similar. More on that later.
I will admit there was emotional resistance too. No-one who abhors fascism likes to admit that the country and it’s people one has emotional ties to is fascist to whatever degree.
As for terms I prefer femifascism slightly more as it’s more descriptive.
I liken feminism to fascism as I’ve come to realize it now –
*Operates at the nation state and supra national level.
*Represents a blatant, unrepentant supremacist movement replete with it’s own philosophy, literature, artworks/symbolism, language, social conventions, media distributors, leadership and political processes.
*Operates in self defense with various levels of state sanctioned violence including propaganda used to desensitize and deceive the population as to it’s violence, it’s courts without due process, it’s widespread surveillance networks and detention centers.
*Has a vast network of propagandists, informers and enforcers both legal and paramilitary.
*Makes war (culturally and/or militarily) on countries which openly reject it.
*Subjugates people deemed inferior (males) using their labor to feed off whilst treating them tokenistically as ‘valued’ (for sacrificial services to the cause)yet ultimately as disposable resources.
*Spreads bigotry and the unhealthy psychological defense systems used to maintain it – projection, distortion, reaction formation, splitting and denial.
*Has in place a system of domestic laws unnervingly akin to pre WW2 anti-semititic nazi Germany.
*Is expansionist in it’s quest for more resources and more totalitarian rule.
Perhaps one day someone will invent a pithy name which more essentially captures these qualities I mention, however for now femifascist will do for me and some others who I respect as great thinkers.
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 2:14 am
@Skeptik re #24 – Wow that’s a great sumnmary of femifascism. I never like the term “femifascism” though because it doesn’t roll off the tongue well. How about “gynofascism”. That summary describes the circumstances which have defined my life ever since boyhood. As I’ve mentioned on this site before, in the 1990’s US feminists participated in “take back the night marches” during which thousands (and I mean thousands) of women marched down the middle of streets blocking traffic and disrupting businesses and harrassing men (I’m surprised at how little press coverage such activity and disruption was given). They claimed to be marching against the epidemic of rape but there was no epidemic of rape as rape then and now is still an extremely rare crime for many important reasons that would prevent rape from ever becoming anything more than extremely rare and most likely to only concern women who go to great extremes to make themselves vulnerable if not deliberately then out of complete idiocy (manipulating others with the public spectacle of her chronic victimhood). Any epidemic of rape was nothing more than their imagination and paranoia. They were and still are delusional. Anyway, those women at that time in the US (and today still) reminded me about literature I had read concerning the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany. At the time, I knew a man who has likely since passed away but then he recalled when he was in Germany during the time of the Brown Shirts and he told me what it was like and recognized the kind of frightening similarities between feminists then and today and Brown Shirts then. I don’t think I’m going off the rails at all when I write that feminists today are far worse than the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany. Much more broadly distributed geographically (worldwide) and it has happened over a much more protracted duration (four decades). We live in truly frightening times but I think so many men have become habituated to he fright and the terror that they are numb.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 5:08 am
Down Under (#11):
I don’t understand much of your argument, but I understand you are trying to criticize others’ writing (including mine), but I don’t understand your motivation for doing so. The most I can make of it is that your are riding to the defense of journalists, and see yourself as a media expert. Your need to convey this by belittling others’ work possibly has more to do with promotion of your own self-view than any wish to elucidate us. Unfortunately, there is little in your comment practically that could help anyone improve their impact on media. Further, I reject your implication that NZ journalists don’t deserve criticism about their unbalanced treatment of gender issues and almost exclusive favour towards feminist ideology and facilitation of feminist propaganda. And I reject your implication that such criticism simply arises from the critics’ (i.e. our) lack of insight into journalism.
Thank you for telling me what I need to do. I will be certain to check with you in future for intellectual and spiritual guidance. However, if you read my post again you will see that I addressed many important facts about protection orders and issues around them.
I hadn’t noticed a slagging debate at all, and certainly my posting and most of the replies don’t involve much slagging so it’s far from correct to say that’s all that’s happened so far. In fact, some very important information, observations and theory have been disseminated.
Can you point to anything ever posted on MENZ that has ‘acheived something’ in line with your definition? It’s hard to know; there’s no evidence I know of that MENZ postings have ever contributed directly to changes in legislation either existing or planned, but it’s quite possible that some individuals have learned something and perhaps changed their wording in public statements etc. I have found that letters direct to individuals are more likely to achieve that, not immediately and not acknowledged by them, but evident when their public wording subsequently changes, e.g. to use gender-neutral rather than male=perpertrator, female=victim language.
I wasn’t aware she raised any question, but she did make some statements.
If someone acknowledges that domestic violence is significantly done against males as well as females, then that person would use the gender-neutral word ‘victim’ or ‘complainant’. If a person uses only the word ‘woman’ when referring to victims of domestic violence, then it’s a pretty good assumption they are choosing to deny or disregard any violence committed against men. But I’m not even sure that is the assumption you thought I made.
Many of your remaining questions were intelligent and relevant. I have no way of knowing or finding out the answers to them. One main point of my posting was to observe that journalists didn’t ask such questions or provide the answers even though one imagines that their role is to do so.
I don’t raise news; that’s not my job. (Murray the mere axe murderer might be able to generate some, for the right price…) Certainly, I offered some opinion, but to at least an equal extent I provided facts about the legislation, its flawed ideology and sexist application and its obvious and frequent failure to protect those called ‘protected persons’ who really needed protection at all. Unfortunately, it’s extremely rare for anyone in the media to inform the public of these facts or even to seek them out, much less any opinion from the men’s movement, so, well here we are doing it on MENZ. Surprising I know, but it seems a fun hobby to me; stamps are so last century.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 8:25 am
I quite like the term femifascism, it has nice alliteration, and I agree that similarities between our situation and developing violent totalitarian states including pre-war Nazi Germany are significant. The next step will undoubtedly be to silence voices like ours who dare to threaten the prevailing ideology. (That’s why I’m concerned about unjudicious or potentially illegal statements that the authorities will exploit for repression purposes.)
It is quite beyond belief that we see so much blatant anti-male sexism, even in our laws, when there are nominally other laws against it. Turning a blind eye and tolerating discrimination and hate speech that stereotypes and scapegoats an entire class of people is exactly what has happened frequently in history in the lead up to genocide and other atrocities. In our era, gendercide is well underway already, genocide is around the corner.
I agree also that the slow and extended nature of the gathering storm suggests it will be of immense proportions.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 9:09 am
A quick look at the realities of fascism, what it actually is, and what values it promotes, quickly reveals that using it to describe feminism and its effects is unwise to do. Fascism as a political system is in fact very much about rigid social structures and hierarchies. In Hitler’s Germany for example, this ment that women were pushed into particular roles fitting for their place in society. This ment that women’s rights and the feminist movement in Germany was dramatically brought to a halt during the rule of Hitler. Fascism is actually against feminism. The two ideologies are diametrically apposed.
.
It would be more accurate to describe feminism as a form of communism. Feminist ideology is directly linked to the writings of Marx and is known to have levels of communist influence. Helen Clark for example, who is well known within New Zealand to be a feminist, was once a member of the New Zealand Communist Party, this should come as no surprise. The communist influence is also evident from ideas like the mythical “pay gap” the solution to which is to make sure women get the same pay despite not working for the same number of hours (a truly communist solution). Stalin would be proud of the accomplishments of Feminism, which has now effectively put a form of disguised communism as a major influence in the political agendas of every Western country.
.
I do agree though that describing feminism as connected with fascism has a nice ring to it, even if it is not a particularly accurate description.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 10:41 am
MGTOW is a rejection of the current social model. It is a lack of co operation with society and also amongst men. Stressed males have a tendency to seek isolation, and I would interpret that behaviour as a response to social stress. I wouldn’t call that Anarchism. Anarchy is the idealism of voluntary co operation, rather than a coercive state. That is an end game and the road to Anarchy would not necessarily be a peaceful one but women co operate better without leadership, men co operate better with leadership, so Anarchy, I think is more likely in a feminist state. Going back to what I said before “The most successful part of the feminist agenda is that it exists without government and in that respect I would say it is closer to anarchism than fascism in its implementation.” If you look at the international co operation of women compared to men it exists internationally without government – not in the absence of governments. I think you are only looking at half the equation. There are elements of various political ideologies within the domain of feminism and I am not sure if that analysis achieves anything or not. Perhaps in relation to the domestic violence industry it does. The issue of protection orders and state implementation of them and the government response (which is to ignore these things as much as possible) indicates that the state and the government are no longer a synonymous item. The danger to that is quite real and that is the loss of faith in our social contract. So do they protect anyone? It is a loaded question because in this case, if there was a protection order, then one of the many failed. If you look at all the protection orders that didn’t ‘fail’ and analyzed the outcomes the answer would be many unpublicized deaths and disastrous outcomes. Then what is the cost of protection orders financial and economically. Protection orders are a good entry point but which debate is more likely to bring about change ideological, social outcomes, cost and economic outcomes. I’d put my money on number three because that’s more likely to make the news than join the queue for an opinion column.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 10:57 am
So Phoenix (#29), any ideas for a more accurate term to refer to the oppressive regime of feminism? A term that might help alert people to the dangerous process in which one biological class is systematically demonized and discriminated against, and to the similarities here with pre-war Nazi Germany and other totalitarian, genocidal states.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 11:17 am
Thanks Down Under (#30) for your thoughts. I think your conclusion is that some analysis of the economic cost of the protection order regime might arouse some interest in wider media. Good idea, I hope someone does it. Indeed, the current review of the Family Court appears to be interested mainly in how we can make it cost less. I know Murray Bacon did calculations of the social and human-life costs of protection order laws, but I didn’t notice journalists showing any interest in that.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 11:26 am
Down Under,
we agree on something – MGTOW is a rejection of the current social model.
I don’t agree with the notion that stressed males seek isolation. That’s obviously only one amongst several differing coping mechanisms males use.
If you’d had the decency to ask I could have told you common-sensically that sometimes when stressed I seek isolation, other times I seek social support, other times I oscillate between the two states. I think that’s common to the vast majority of males I’ve met too.
So I don’t really get why you’re attempting to tar all males with the same stereotyping brush.
The idea that women co-operate better without leadership seems quite bizarre to me too. Especially in light of the feminist movement having very pronounced leadership which admittedly gets overhauled from time to time – case in point would be that Germaine Greer isn’t given the same gravitas as she used to by masses of women these days.
The idea that feminism exists without government strikes me as quaint and naive. That may have been the case many a year ago, however these days I think feminism IS very much part of government – you might want to double check that one with Hillary Clinton though!
I think there may be some deterrent against cavalier frivolous use of protection orders with the implementation of two way protection orders whereby if someone takes out a protection order against another person, that other person automatically has a protection order against the accuser. The whole issue would be rendered mute though if we had due process whereby protection orders were only issues WITH corroborative evidence to back them up, rather than on hearsay and mere accusation.
As for a cost-benefit analysis of protection orders I can easily imagine the dogmatic feminist party line on that idea. It will be “If it saves one woman’s life, then it’s worth it”. Of course the same logic won’t be applied by feminists to saving male lives which result from male suicide as a response to false uncorroborated accusations of domestic violence.
Remember Thomas Ball – He died to save our children.
Comment by Skeptic — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 12:50 pm
I disagree that women cooperate better without leadership. Globally, women have had considerable leadership if that’s what you want to call it. I call it manipulation and brainwashing. However, I’m not sure they can be managed any other way. To be lead requires that a person’s sense of reason (analytical skills, logic, etc…) can be appealed to. I believe women choose to deny themselves that. Also, if someone is manipulable then they are manipulative. Women are manipulative and therefore respond to manipulation rather than sense and reason and logic (leadership). So, maybe “leadership” is not the correct term. Of course, our government doesn’t lead so much as it manipulates with lies and propaganda. Whatever you call it (and that’s why I don’t like names and terminology), women are not just exercising logic and sense and reason independently. Their behavior is irrational and they are being directed somehow (manipulated). I insist that it is a feminist government and that the feminist government is global. That’s what fascism is. Men (or rather non-feminist men) for the most part are too independent to be manipulated at such a large scale. I agree with the feminist party line on cost benefit analysis of protection order. If it saves one woman’s life, it doesn’t matter how many men’s lives it costs. There is no substitute for due process. Women believe just the opposite though. If a thousand innocent men have to be incarcerated (or put to death) to save a woman’s life (or much more commonly her ego), then it is worth it. That’s how crazy things have become. Putting a thousand men in prison to save one woman’s life is bad enough. But we are putting thousands of men to death (suicide, war, poverty, etc…) to protect her ego. It’s gotten that bad. It’s sick.
Comment by Darryl X — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 1:25 pm
Do women cooperate better without leadership? Hmm, let’s look at that. Leadership would imply direction, a level of agreement on how to go in that direction (shared morals and values) and accountability (measuring whether they have gone in the direction the leadership is pointing).
.
Women don’t appear to be good at ANY of these things. I will give them credit though that sitting around without direction, having no shared morals and values and having no accountability is an easy situation to be cooperative with.
.
So I disagree, I think women are extremely cooperative without leadership, of course, like anyone, without leadership their cooperation is utterly pointless.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 9th December 2011 @ 11:16 pm
@ Skeptik et al re post #20 and the barf-bag worthy video – That video by the Verizon Foundation has been removed. Check out this link to an article at Fathers and Families about their cooperative effort with other organizations to have it removed. I supported the campaign by Fathers and Families to have the video removed by writing a two page letter identifying actual data and statistics concerning domestic violence (with citations and references). I doubt that helped but maybe my threat to sue them for fraud at the end helped more.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=22143
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 10th December 2011 @ 8:10 am
Darryl X (#36): Well done for challenging this; having it removed represents another small victory against femifascism or whatever term we might use to describe the Nazi-style processes characterizing our era. In some ways it’s a shame the video has been removed, because it stood as evidence of what is generally tolerated these days as misandrist propaganda. Did anyone record or keep a copy of it? It would be good to have in the archives.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 10th December 2011 @ 10:11 am
@ Hans – Good question. I don’t know if anyone has a copy. You’re right. It would be good to have as a reference. I hadn’t thought of that. (Although I’m glad it’s gone – I’m more happy it’s gone than I am about not having it as a reference because there’s more where that came from.) It is definitely a great example of misandry and gross misrepresentation of facts concerning domestic violence and our culture – it’s a masterpiece. Can you imagine that being broadcast into space, what intelligent extraterrestrials might think about us. They’d probably come down and exterminate all the men. If the government hasn’t already. I’ll do a little investigation and see if I can find a copy of it somewhere else. Someone else must have put it up somewhere. Maybe Fathers and Families. It’s like toothpaste – once out it’s impossible to put back.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 10th December 2011 @ 11:55 am
Daryl X,
Thanks for the good news.
I’m delighted to hear the femifascist video has been removed from public airing.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 10th December 2011 @ 12:53 pm