This has been a dark week for men in New Zealand with many influential people displaying ignorant misandry. Their comments show that they do not deserve to be in positions of influence.

The roller coaster was started with the government’s announced changes to our welfare system. These changes were based on the largely unenlightened recommendations made by Paula Rebstock’s Welfare Working Group. In particular, a proposal for WINZ staff to offer free contraception to DPB benefiaries elicited a moderate response including some feminist outrage that women should have to discuss such personal matters with WINZ staff. Then Colin Craig, leader of the Conservative Party quite correctly stated that research has shown NZ women are the most promiscuous in the world and he argued that other citizens should not be made responsible for this or made to facilitate or to encourage it. That’s when the dishonest and sinister nature of femaleism in NZ stood up for us all to see.

First, our prime minister knee-jerked that there was no evidence to support Colin Craig’s statement, and/or that he hadn’t seen any such evidence. Colin Craig specified two independent research studies that showed NZ women were either the first or second most promiscuous in the world, but this didn’t inspire Mr Key to retract his ignorant rebuttal. Other reports referred to a survey done by Marie Claire women’s magazine that found NZ women had the highest average number of sexual partners in the world. Further a NZ gyneacologist publicly expressed concerns about the large number of pregnant women he dealt with who could not remember whom they drunkenly had sex with to become pregnant. It’s worrying that Mr Key does not keep up with news, that he is unaware of what the rest of the world knows about New Zealand, and that he would make uninformed pronouncements without first getting his well-resourced research team to check out the facts.

Then numerous other politicians rode their white-knight horses to the defence of our women’s honour. Tariana Turia came out with the nonsensical claim that it was “outrageous to talk about the promiscuity of NZ women when they probably knew nothing about other countries”. Err, but Tariana, both studies quoted by Mr Craig compared self-reported sexual behaviour across many countries and NZ came out pretty well on top. Why on earth would Mr Craig refer to NZ women being the most promiscuous in the world if that didn’t involve some knowledge of other countries? She followed up her stupid comment with the claim that “We do try to operate on evidence and we don’t lie in the bedrooms of other people”. Well Tariana if you try to operate on evidence you might acknowledge what the available evidence says in this case. And while it may be true that the evidence was not gained by lying in the bedrooms of other people, plenty of that is obviously done by NZ women!

Mana leader Hone Harawira took a ganglands approach, suggesting NZ women should visit Mr Craig “and set him straight”. While I’m sure he would deny he meant anything sinister, his implication was clear. One recalls the group of feminists in the 1980’s who violently abducted, tarred and feathered an Auckland University lecturer because of allegations that he had seduced one or more students. Yeah right, go for it Hone e hoa, and you might also suggest that after NZ women have committed violence against Mr Craig they boil him up with a bit of puha.

Education Minister Hekia Parata said she was an aunt, a mother and a cousin and hadn’t found women to be more promiscuous in NZ. Well, that settles it then folks! Who needs to survey thousands of people when we only needed to ask Hekia?

Peter Dunnenothingformen described Mr Craig’s accurate comments as ‘nutty’. Just as nutty I suppose as all the fathers who have committed suicide after being finacially savaged by his so-called child support and unable to afford the costs of travel to see their own children.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said the fact Mr Key was open to a potential coalition with someone who had such a belief only showed how desperate National was. Yeah right Winston, beliefs based on large research studies are quite unacceptable and should be rejected out of hand. However, the beliefs you frequently used to spread about the undesirability of immigrants were clearly much more sound, and xenophobia is a much better basis for beliefs than science is.

Then Paula Bennett waded in with some good old male-blaming hate speech. Apparently the real issue is older men “preying on” young women. So it seems NZ women’s promiscuity is actually the fault of men. And she wasn’t sure that we “actually identify” the full extent of the problem in NZ with older men who fathered numerous children to various women and continued to ‘prey’ on younger women but couldn’t afford to support the resulting children. Apparently she has heard about this happening so that proves it, a huge problem that has not yet been identified by any social research. Oh well, no need to fret Paula, feminist advocacy researchers can soon fix that. Then she said Mr Craig’s comment was ridiculous and offensive, she used the words “quite old-fashioned views” and said she despaired at times and that “We’ve still got a long way to go.” Right you are Paula, you and your femaleist cronies do still have a long way to go to reach your utopia of men being blamed for everything women do, government manufacture of all knowledge, and censorship of any facts or opinions you find uncomfortable. A wee trip to China might afford you some new ideas and skills to this end.

Journalist Kerre Woodham waded in claiming that Mr Craig had insulted all kiwi women and that his comments were based on a Durex survey that was “hardly empirical evidence”. Well actually Ms Woodham, Mr Craig’s statement was based on several independent research studies and I doubt you have read them. The Durex company prides itself on the scientific rigour of its surveys that are a lot more sound than most feminst research. For example, I note you and other journalists have not seen fit to comment on frequent feminist claims such as these just today by Kim McGregor that one in four NZ girls experiences sexual violence before the age of 16 and that 99% of offenders get away with it because of low reporting and low conviction rates (and 93.7702% of statistics are made up on the spot!). Just check out the shoddy “advocacy research” methodology on which Ms McGregor’s outlandish claims are loosely based. For various reasons ranging from seeking funding, to general feminist sympathizing, to personal vendetta against men as a result of a bad experience, this feminist research was designed to generate only the ‘findings’ sought by the researchers. On the other hand the Durex company had no reason to manipulate its research in order to find NZ women rather than any other country’s women to be the winners.

The Herald on Sunday editorial today referred to the “very strange Colin Craig” and “some widely discredited research by a condom manufacturer”. Well Mr Editor, please refer us to the evidence that the Durex research was widely discredited, except by other local journalists who have never read it.

A number of other journalists such as John Armstrong suggested that hoards of ‘deadbeat dads’ abandon their partners and children and that is actually responsible for the high number of DPB beneficiaries, intergenerational DPB lifestyles and that proportion who continue to have babies to ensure ongoing DPB income. Why don’t those journalists become informed about the dynamics of sole parenthood, that the majority of family breakups are initiated by women and that DPB availability encourages this as it does teenage carelessness as well as deliberate pregancy in order to start a reliably paying career?

My point in this posting is not to engage in moral analysis about NZ women’s well-established promiscuity or to stand in judgement of it , or to debate the merits or otherwise of the government’s encouragement of birth control by DPB beneficiaries, or even to bemoan the social harm caused by our foolish DPB system. My goal is merely to highlight the process of femaleism as we have seen it here rearing up in response to an unauthorized comment. What does this show us about the femaleist regime?

Firstly, any facts and sound research findings that women don’t like will be immediately dismissed, lied about or otherwise discredited.

Secondly, anyone who dares to state such facts will be pilloried, ridiculed, demeaned and/or threatened and it will be made clear to them that it is dangerous to say anything that women might find uncomfortable.

Thirdly, femaleists can rely on all manner of people to jump to the defence of women’s honour and to eliminate any challenge to female supremacy.

Fourthly, it is unacceptable to hold women accountable for anything they do; men will always end up being blamed in some way.

Yes, there’s nothing new there, but this episode has been an interesting example of it.