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

Feminist Myopia Concerning Indian Violence

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:21 pm Sat 5th January 2013

This horrible case in India has led to worldwide campaigns demanding greater protection for women. A female student was tricked into boarding a bus that was actually being taken for a joy ride by a group of drunk men who then beat her with an iron bar, stripped her, gang raped her and threw her out of the moving vehicle naked on to the street then tried to run her over presumably to ensure her death. The woman died in hospital some days later from her injuries.

The violence committed by the offender(s) was despicable and unworthy of human status. Although the safety and costs of the death penalty are deeply problematic, personally I would have no moral objection to a death penalty for one or more of these offenders if proven beyond reasonable doubt to have led or participated actively in this violence. I’m sure most in the men’s movement will agree with protests by large groups of Indian women and men demanding that violence including sexual violence against women be properly investigated and prosecuted to the full force the law. I’m sure most here would agree also that Indian police and justice system deserve criticism and to be held accountable if they have been turning a blind eye to, victim-blaming, treating as unimportant, excusing or minimizing such violence.

One incredible aspect of this depraved episode though is the apathy and neglect shown towards the female victim’s boyfriend. Many news articles completely failed to mention him at all or to report on his injuries or recovery. Today, New Zealand’s National Radio finally mentioned him but only because he had recovered enough to make a statement about the events including criticism of how police responded when they found the pair. The fact is that this man was also locked in the bus, beaten with the iron bar, stripped, thrown naked from the moving bus and targeted to be run over. He was knocked unconscious, then he regained consciousness at some stage and rescued the injured woman from being run over by the bus they had just been thrown from. He was forced to endure seeing or being aware of the physical and sexual violence towards his girlfriend and this will undoubtedly cause him post-traumatic stress disorder and lifelong psychological damage. But who cares? Nobody it seems has cared a damn about him.

The protestors and world media have shown appalling misandry by focusing only on the female victim of this violence and disregarding the male victim. Seriously violent crimes were committed by a group of drunk men against both a woman and a man.
Some articles mentioned that the man had also been beaten but his victimhood was almost totally ignored. The exclusive focus of the response to this crime has been on women’s rights and wishes.

Such feminist myopia is more than simply a moral issue of fairness. The calls by many have been for responses unlikely to reduce violence whilst contravening important principles of justice, equality and social cohesion. Feminist-focused protestors and media have demanded special treatment of women complainants throughout the process of Indian law enforcement, automatic assumptions by police of the truth of their allegations, expansion of definitions of rape and sexual assault, ‘fast track’ justice for those accused of violence towards women, and much harsher punishments including the death penalty for such crimes against women specifically. Sound familiar? The Indian government now appears intent on introducing some of those measures. Many western countries including New Zealand have pursued similar approaches with little protective result for women but massive injustice towards accused men and a degradation of the status of men in general, associated with erosion of family, community cohesion and serious increases in antisocial behaviour and gang membership by boys and young men. Well, what do we expect? If we treat the male half of our population as undesirable, discriminate against men and show widespread disrespect for them while still exploiting them financially and physically, what have young men to aspire to in their society?

Laws in most countries already, quite appropriately, exist against sexual violence and usually provide for harsh punishments. If authorities are not applying those laws properly then that is what needs to be addressed. Encouraging reduced standards of justice, more gender inequality and increased state violence towards men can only be expected to result in violent attitudes. Ignoring, excusing or tolerating violence by women and towards men can only be expected to perpetuate a violent society. To reduce violence it will be necessary to encourage non-violence and respect towards all humans male and female, to show understanding and mercy regardless of gender, and to identify and address the real factors that increase the risk of violence. These are likely to include alcohol and amphetamine abuse, poor conflict-resolution skills, lifestyle stress, erosion of community, reduction in care and safety for mentally disordered people, sexual and relationship deprivation for males who are not alpha males, unfair family laws and loss of family. The ‘patriarchal power and control’ and ‘man bad, woman good’ models have misled us badly, causing western countries and now the rest of the world to misunderstand the causes of violence and to look towards false measures that ironically promote violent and uncaring attitudes.


  1. This is a very fine post Hans.
    I believe you’ve created such a strong erudite argument here it deserves to go much wider than NZ. How about sending it to A Voice for Men and The Spearhead websites who both have a more global readership?

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 5th January 2013 @ 4:56 pm

    Even an article about the male victim’s account admits he was attacked and has a broken leg but doesn’t mention the other injuries including concussion and emotional trauma that he is certain to have endured, and describes him as the gang-rape victim’s friend not a victim in his own right. Then it simply continues the discussion about the need for draconian measures to combat violence only against women!

    Comment by Luther Blissett — Sat 5th January 2013 @ 5:52 pm


    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 5th January 2013 @ 7:37 pm

  4. Thanks for that one Skeptic, ‘The Curious Case of Country C’, cleverly done.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 5th January 2013 @ 10:49 pm

  5. I am from the aforementioned country, and while you probably have heard a lot of the “misogyny” in Indian culture, I bet you haven’t heard of the misandry, also thriving within.

    The protesters in New Delhi and online have called for castrating rapists, many write posts asking for genital mutilation , limb amputation etc. All of them without fail, ignore the possibility of female rapists, yet we do know well enough there are plenty of female rapists, just underreported because most of their victims happen to be children and their MO of gaining the victims trust – sort of killing them softly.

    You may have heard about how Indian men stare, cat-call, whistle, grope women on buses and trains ; and the ubiquitious rapes and honour killings of course. What you won’t hear about , is that many of the honour killings involve men, who don’t like their daughter/sister running around with a boyfriend. In some cases, the boyfriend/husband may be sexually mutilated. Most crimes against men garner no response, while crimes against women, you get plenty of “castrate them” replies. Some crimes against men, like gangrape by women, get responses like “lucky him, he died screwing” and such.

    Privileged women who spends thousands of dollars on clothes and cosmetics a year complain about how oppressed they are, while millions of boys are roaming hungry and naked. Indian culture prides itself on pedestalising women, but women’s groups say this is skin deep and women are molested and raped every day, women are disrespected, that Indian culture is misogynistic and patriarchal.

    This is the same culture that didn’t see outrage when Indian soldiers were found tortured and mutilated in Kargil, or when police officers castrated a suspect in custody (many cases, most unreported) or when sleeping husbands are mutilated by wives.

    Why – I remember being first introduced to misandry, long before I knew the word – in 1990 when I myself was a 10 year old boy, opened the morning newspaper, found a report on 10-11 year old boys , some orphans and some not, being castrated to be made/inducted into the eunuch community. That was in 1990 , some dozens of boys were mentioned in that article and there was zero outrage, no letters to the editor condemning the practice and demanding it be stopped. Even innocent , 10 year old boys, receive no sympathy or attention when subject the worst forms of misandry. But crimes against women, men fall over themselves to prostrate themselves to women , offering their genitals on a platter.

    Comment by POD — Sat 5th January 2013 @ 11:44 pm

  6. Hey, see how the holiday break has highlighted the importance of showing we’re against violence towards women, and the importance of a continuation of the government-funded white ribbon campaign encouraging us only to be against violence towards women!

    Waihi Beach stabbing victim dies

    Man shot in stomach in Flat Bush

    Police: Man Died a ‘violent death’ in Panmure

    Police still searching for Mt Maunganui assault victim

    Man hospitalized after Porirua assault

    All Black admits bottle attack

    Mallet attack sparked by car sale (Actually, no, the attack was sparked by the female offender’s sense of self-entitlement and confidence that she would get favourable treatment in the justice system.)

    And what about this story from London…

    Bolt bottle thrower in court This spectator Ashley Gill-Webb at the Olympic Games shouted hostile discouragement at Usain Bolt and was alleged to have thrown a plastic bottle on to the track (all of which Usain Bolt was unaware of and he won the event). A female spectator was angry with Mr Gill-Webb’s disrespectful behaviour so asked him if he was crazy (and actually, yes, he was suffering from mental illness) and then “pushed him hard” when he tried to walk away. But was this woman held accountable for her deliberate, anger-based assault? No, of course not, because she is a member of the superior gender who is allowed to assault members of the lesser gender. No, it is Mr Gill-Webb who is facing charges in Court (for behaviour that I would have thought not particularly unusual by sports spectators and not significantly violent). The violence used against him could not be justified on the basis of self-defence or preventing harm to others because he was walking away at the time. Never mind dear, you are female so it’s ok to assault, even to kill a mere male who dares to offend you or to have you being angry at him. And don’t let any male’s unwellness get in the way either.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 12:08 am

  7. im dont like violence adainst anyone but when it happens to a woman..i dont really give a fuck

    Comment by Ford — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 7:15 am

  8. Yeah thanks heaps Ford for continuing your efforts to discredit the movement and those of us who work hard and write carefully to raise awareness about misandry. Your disclosure that you “don’t really give a fuck” about the pain and suffering of female victims of violence shows your true low-life nature. I hope that you soon start writing on behalf of some extremist feminist group, because that would be a more honest way of damaging this movement than your snake-in-the-grass sabotaging activities here.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 8:26 am

  9. when society changes its attitudes toward men then ill change mine towrds women..simple..and sabotage..i suppose im an international domestic terrorist too with connection to al queada..ya muppet..ppl dont like my attitude and opinions..tough shit

    Comment by Ford — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 9:18 am

  10. Thanks for your posting POD (#5). Very interesting account from someone who lives there.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 11:13 am

  11. I retract the personal attacks I wrote concerning the poster who refers to him/herself as Ford. I apologize for breaking the site’s rules in this regard. However, I emphatically distance myself from the misogyny the commenter Ford has expressed. I believe that Ford’s primary motivation in writing misogynist statements in response to my writings has been revenge because I previously dared to challenge earlier misogyny he posted. I have never written misogynist views and I challenge anyone to point to any evidence to the contrary. I am not willing to be associated with misogynist statements especially under cover of pretend names, and because the contributor ‘Ford’ has continued to associate me with his/her misogynist comments I no longer experience this site as a safe place to be associated with. Therefore after about ten years of active participation I will now discontinue writing on the MENZ Issues site.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 11:43 am

  12. I strongly agree with what you’ve written here Hans. As “Ford” has seldom if ever contributed anything useful to this site, and has repeatedly violated the rules, his comments will all be moderated from now on, which means I will only approve them if I think they are useful.

    I apologise for my slackness in moderating; my internet access is limited to brief sessions in restaurants in between adventures. As you are probably the most thoughtful and informative author on the site, I hope you will reconsider your decision to stop participating.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 12:17 pm

  13. Ford may be a bit trollish with his attitudes; but I think I understand where he comes from.
    I too don’t feel particularly concerned with violence against women because they are women. I don’t support white ribbon campaigns. I don’t agree with those organisations that campaign solely against violence against women.
    I disagree with all physical violence. I disagree with all other forms of blatent or extreme violence. The gender of the recipient (victim) is irrelevent.
    When certain organisations start campaigning to reduce all violence full stop, not just violence against women and children, then I might consider supporting them.

    Comment by Happy Larry — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 1:55 pm

  14. I also hope that we continue to benefit from the thoughtful and valuable ideas raised by Hans. I also have been concerned that some people who write here give a poor impression of men and fathers and I thank you John for his proposed action. The few of us who post here under our own names, and have professional and/or political lives that are important to us, deserve some consideration. I’m happy to debate ideas but I resent when contributors attempt to put words *that are not my own) into my named mouth.
    Hans has stuck his neck out for me in multiple situations over about 10 years and I thank him for the respectful manner he has shown wether he agrees or disagrees with what I say (or do).

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 2:55 pm

  15. I agree Mr Potter. Ford is a liability to this org.

    Comment by Ian — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 3:41 pm

  16. Ford,
    So you don’t give a fuck if a woman is on the receiving end of violence eh? Well, I do.
    I didn’t stop caring about women when I took up Men’s Rights Advocacy. I’m much bigger than that despite having been given the death by a million cuts from a lot of women who took to feminism over the years.
    BTW here’s a couple of women I value because they are great advocates for Men’s Rights –

    Personally I see these women doing an enormous amount of good for me and other men. Certainly much more good than you ranting about ALL women as they they’re all the same. I agree with Ian. At present you are a liability.

    You wouldn’t care if these two staunch allies of men (Girlwriteswhat and Erin Pizzy) were on the receiving end of violence eh?
    Can you see how daft that attitude of indifference towards all women looks? And how you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by tarring all women with the same brush despite the fact I’ve pointed to only two women amongst an increasing number who are going in to bat for Men’s Rights? We’ll see.

    I’m in two minds about your decision to leave MENZ.
    On the one hand I can see it would be a loss to the MENZ community. Your input here has been immense and very important to the development of thought and strategy about many men’s issues in NZ for a long time. On the other hand your stepping away can leave a space for others to step up and come through. Plus personally I think you deserve a much bigger stage at places like A Voice for Men which is much more international than MENZ. Such a move needn’t stop you from commenting about men’s issues in NZ either. On the contrary, I’m sure your uniquely NZ voice would be a very welcome addition AND be a way to apply even more pressure for NZs misandric culture to change favorably. Not only that but it’d be a cinch for someone to link your writing on a larger stage back to MENZ. Food for thought?

    Your resentment is noted, but I think it’s misplaced.
    For in a culture where men who make a stand for Men’s Rights are routinely discriminated against I post here using a pseudonym for safety. No doubt Ford does too. Such anonymity means we can be, and I believe indeed are, much bolder than you in what we say regarding Men’s Rights. We can give voice to ideas that advance things for guys like you.
    I think therefore you should give due consideration to those of us who choose to remain anonymous for the fact is we also have professional and personal lives too.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 4:25 pm

  17. I hear what some of you are saying about Ford and your view of him as socially reprehensible but think about this.

    First – I take Ford to be a man rather than a troll.

    Second – Like any of us here whether we use real or assumed names we can represent a point of view.

    Third – I believe Ford is representative of a large group of men who have lost faith in women.

    Fourth – I appreciate and acknowledge the huge contribution that posters like Hans make to a site like this but that does not ascribe the right to censor a point of view – that is up to the reader to decide that, if we believe in equality.

    Fifth – I hope that JP in his moderation carefully distinguishes between those comments which are unnecessary for a variety of reasons and the point of view that is presented by this man’s experience of life.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 5:07 pm

  18. I assume Posts #16 and 17 is Ford by another name from the context of his comments.
    This shows what a light benevolent hand of censorship JP wields.
    We all know this site is tolerant of psuedonyms and I’m happy to maintain your anomynity, be you Skeptic or Ford or whoever else.
    Can I suggest that Ford might like to re-read post #11. We all make mistakes at times and can be impetuous. Part of being human is that we learn from our experience.
    For the sake of clarity Lowlife I speak in post #14 from my own experience of Hans.

    Comment by allan harvey — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 5:33 pm

  19. skeptic..i adopt the same attitudes shown towards men..whats good for the goose….maybe women should face the same condemnation as men..see how they like it..i know for a fact women dont like their attitudes thrown back at no i couldnt care rather help a male in trouble than a female

    Comment by lowlife — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 6:09 pm

  20. @ Allan #20 don’t twist the facts, JP has the power of moderation, you and Hans are trying to enforce censorship.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 6th January 2013 @ 6:35 pm

  21. Reply to lowlife #19

    Your comment of “i know for a fact women don’t like their attitudes thrown back at them.”…I concur with your post,however the attitude that you speak of,is the trait of the new age empowered western european women…

    Kind regards to all John Dutchie …Free at long last from the feminist state of called..N.Z

    Comment by johndutchie — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 10:50 am

  22. Reply to Skeptic #16

    Your comment of “Plus personally I think you deserve a much bigger stage at places like A Voice for Men”…I completely agree with you there…Hans would be a major asset there

    “A Voice for Men” are making leaps and bounds concerning the misandric demonetization of men in western european society…As you are well aware of ….”Erin Pizzey” as joined the “A Voice for Men”…I was elated when I read about that on there website….

    Kind regards to all John Dutchie “¦Free at long last from the misandric feminist state called..N.Z

    Comment by johndutchie — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 11:00 am

  23. @Allan Harvey Your assumption that I am Ford is wrong – I am not.

    @Hans 11

    I believe that Ford’s primary motivation in writing misogynist statements in response to my writings has been revenge because I previously dared to challenge earlier misogyny he posted.

    You’ve taken Ford’s comments as a personal attack. Not that I agree with him but a lot of what Ford writes is a flip side position.

    Looking at the position you have raised in relation to men and then what Ford says

    I don’t like violence against anyone but when it happens to a woman…I don’t really give a fuck

    That is simply adopting the same point of view as the media has adopted but reversing the genders.

    Sometimes it takes this sort of shock-jock tactic to get people to understand.

    Wouldn’t it have been better to have said to Ford…

    I don’t like the way you said it but that’s exactly what the media is doing to men, isn’t it.

    Or do you simply not see what he is doing.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 12:16 pm

  24. There is a conflict of interests in Some people like the almost completely unmoderated (uncensored..) style. This does have the effect of allowing critical people to use comments as ammunition in familycaught$ and other “proper” forums.

    John carries the running costs and as a result, the moderation style is his free choice. I do value an uncensored window onto men’s experiences and attitudes. As a result, unfortunately cannot also play a useful role as a highbrow discussion website. I appreciate and value Ford’s comments. I read them to help me to cool down. He has earlier given his contacts and name, so in the strict sense he is not hiding behind anonymity. I have used them to speak with him on several occasions, so I can vouch for him.

    There is some truth that saying something out loud, may reduce the risk of it actually being done. Strict censorship may on occasion contribute to the very things it is supposedly trying to stop. Best we acknowledge our insanities with words and try to live better lives.

    I have suggested to Hans that a group set up a carefully moderated website, for the highbrow communication to the general public. Thus far he hasn’t accepted this suggestion. Would it be possible for a group to agree on the censorship restrictions that would be required? We don’t seem to be very good at working together? If we cannot work well together, then how could we create hope for positive changes?

    Skeptic has also suggested to submit material to A Voice for Men, which is another excellent idea. I am echoing Down Under’s comments at #17

    Although I understand the caution that many men express about giving their true name, in my opinion the situation is less dangerous than most believe. I know serious threats are routinely made against men and recently women too have been making the same complaints. The familycaught$ are only mafia. The only treatment is simple exposure of the truth. The nettle is best grasped tightly and we must make sure that the required support is made available. Judge Boshier initially tried to be honest about the familycaught$ performance in the Kay Skelton abductions case. Brave bullies in secret and cowards in bright sunlight. Andrew Wootton made the same point with different words. A woman showed me this, by her actions and I admit at first I was surprised.

    I hope that we can work together to make a solution.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon – hopeless axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 12:35 pm

  25. Thanks Murray and others for contributing to the much needed debate on families outside of mainstream news. I’m sure we all agree mainstream news has no debate at all and this is why femninists have gotten away with misinformation and false statistics for so long. In open debate the bubble of ideology and false information is easily burst. This site believes in free speech and moderation that I’ve noticed looks pretty good to me.

    Comment by Doug — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 12:46 pm

  26. Down Under makes a valid point about the usefulness in reflecting the real anger that many men experience. I accept that Ford is one of many men who’s attitude towards women is more negative as a direct result of feminist social programmes we have been subjected to. The people behind anti-male hate campaigns like White Ribbon Day benefit financially and politically if violence and women increases.

    However, attitudes that tar all women with the same brush are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I don’t see any fundimental difference between this and the “all men are bastards” school of feminism which drives NZ social policies.

    Ford is not banned; he just now faces the hurdle of convincing me that his comments are worthwhile before they are approved.

    Murray notes that I carry the direct financial costs of hosting MENZ, but there are additional costs as well. I can not list many of my web-design clients on, or they will be harassed by women who disagree with my politics. I can not openly associate with organisations providing services to men, because funders get contacted and threaten to withdraw their support. I knew what I was in for, and I am committed for the long term, but I pay a price that should not be under-estimated.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 1:32 pm

  27. Most people have no idea of the extent to which our political opponents will go, to remove the opinion; it goes way beyond bias in the media. I even had the police visit my partner at her work – they recommended that she terminate her relationship with me – it wasn’t a good look for her. I know Felicity (John’s wife) has suffered in a similar way.

    There is more persecution from behind the lace curtain than most could imagine and social costs as John points out are considerable and far beyond that of funding and running a website. (Anyone who is not a feminist should be an ostracised bankrupt) I don’t always agree with what John says but I do not under estimate his contribution and it is what we do that is more important than what we don’t agree on.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 2:11 pm

  28. Detecting Bias in the News

    At one time or another we all complain about “bias in the news.” The fact is, despite the journalistic ideal of “objectivity,” every news story is influenced by the attitudes and background of its interviewers, writers, photographers and editors.
    Not all bias is deliberate. But you can become a more aware news reader or viewer by watching for the following journalistic techniques that allow bias to “creep in” to the news:

    1. Bias through selection and omission
    An editor can express a bias by choosing to use or not to use a specific news item. Within a given story, some details can be ignored, and others included, to give readers or viewers a different opinion about the events reported. If, during a speech, a few people boo, the reaction can be described as “remarks greeted by jeers” or they can be ignored as “a handful of dissidents.”
    Bias through omission is difficult to detect. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of outlets can this form of bias be observed.

    2. Bias through placement
    Readers of papers judge first page stories to be more significant than those buried in the back. Television and radio newscasts run the most important stories first and leave the less significant for later. Where a story is placed, therefore, influences what a reader or viewer thinks about its importance.

    3. Bias by headline
    Many people read only the headlines of a news item. Most people scan nearly all the headlines in a newspaper. Headlines are the most-read part of a paper. They can summarize as well as present carefully hidden bias and prejudices. They can convey excitement where little exists. They can express approval or condemnation.

    4. Bias by photos, captions and camera angles
    Some pictures flatter a person, others make the person look unpleasant. A paper can choose photos to influence opinion about, for example, a candidate for election. On television, the choice of which visual images to display is extremely important. The captions newspapers run below photos are also potential sources of bias.

    5. Bias through use of names and titles
    News media often use labels and titles to describe people, places, and events. A person can be called an “ex-con” or be referred to as someone who “served time twenty years ago for a minor offense.” Whether a person is described as a “terrorist” or a “freedom fighter” is a clear indication of editorial bias.

    6. Bias through statistics and crowd counts
    To make a disaster seem more spectacular (and therefore worthy of reading about), numbers can be inflated. “A hundred injured in aircrash” can be the same as “only minor injuries in air crash,” reflecting the opinion of the person doing the counting.

    7. Bias by source control
    To detect bias, always consider where the news item “comes from.” Is the information supplied by a reporter, an eyewitness, police or fire officials, executives, or elected or appointed government officials? Each may have a particular bias that is introduced into the story. Companies and public relations directors supply news outlets with puffpieces through news releases, photos or videos. Often news outlets depend on pseudo-events (demonstrations, sit-ins, ribbon cuttings, speeches and ceremonies) that take place mainly to gain news coverage.

    8. Word choice and tone
    Showing the same kind of bias that appears in headlines, the use of positive or negative words or words with a particular connotation can strongly influence the reader or viewer.

    Excerpted from Newskit: A Consumers Guide to News Media, by The Learning Seed Co.

    Media bias score

    TV news goes by so quickly that most people never get a chance to see how biased the news
    really is. Here’s a chance to slow down the process, and see the inner workings of the
    propaganda machinery. (You may want to use a VCR to tape the news, so you an stop and
    start it while you complete the scorecard.)
    Who: “We”
    Who was the correspondent or anchor speaking for? No one (objective reporting)? Or, did they
    appear to represent the U.K. government, or a particular political or economic point of view? For
    every instance of a journalist acting as an advocate, score 5 points — plus 5 points for every
    gratuitous use of “we”.
    What: Loaded labels
    What words did the correspondent choose that were biased or distorted? Include examples of
    loaded language and politically charged labels. Score 5 points for each instance.
    When: “Objective experts”
    When an expert is interviewed, is his or her “stake” in the story identified? Is the viewer given
    sufficient background to discern potential conflict of interest? Score 5 points for each “official
    source” on screen.
    Where: Unidentified sources
    Where did the reporter get most of his/her information? Mark each citation of unnamed sources.
    Score 10 points for each. Award 20 bonus points if the story is dominated by the Downing St,
    Millbank, or other official or corporate statements.
    Why: Hidden agenda
    Why was the story presented this way?
    Who — and what point of view — benefitted from bias? Scoring in this section is up to you —
    depending on the depth, complexity and obviousness of the “hidden agenda” revealed by
    using the Media Bias Detector.
    The Media Bias Detector is adapted from the book Unreliable sources: A Guide to Detecting
    Bias in News Media, written by FAIR’s Martin Lee and Norman Solomon.
    How To Detect Bias In News Media
    Media have tremendous power in setting cultural guidelines and in shaping political discourse. It is
    essential that news media, along with other institutions, are challenged to be fair and accurate. The
    first step in challenging biased news coverage is documenting bias. Here are some questions to
    ask yourself about newspaper, TV and radio news.
    Who are the sources?
    Be aware of the political perspective of the sources used in a story. Media over-rely on “official”
    (government, corporate and establishment think tank) sources. Progressive and public interest
    voices were grossly underrepresented.
    To portray issues fairly and accurately, media must broaden their spectrum of sources. Otherwise,
    they serve merely as megaphones for those in power
    Count the number of corporate and government sources versus the number of progressive,
    public interest, female and minority voices. Demand mass media expand their address books;
    better yet, give them lists of progressive and public interest experts in the community.
    Is there a lack of diversity?
    What is the race and gender diversity at the news outlet you watch compared to the communities
    it serves? How many producers, editors or decision-makers at news outlets are women, people
    of color or openly gay or lesbian? In order to fairly represent different communities, news outlets
    should have members of those communities in decision-making positions.
    How many of the experts these news outlets cite are women and people of color? FAIR’s 40-
    month survey of ‘Nightline’ found its U.S. guests to be 92 percent white and 89 percent male. A
    similar survey of PBS’s ‘NewsHour’ found its guestlist was 90 percent white and 87 percent
    From whose point of view is the news reported?
    Political coverage often focuses on how issues affect politicians or corporate executives rather
    than those directly affected by the issue. For example, many stories on parental notification of
    abortion emphasized the “tough choice” confronting male politicians while quoting no women
    under 18–those with the most at stake in the debate. Economics coverage usually looks at how
    events impact stockholders rather than workers or consumers. Demand that those affected by the
    issue have a voice in coverage.
    Are there double standards?
    Do media hold some people to one standard while using a different standard for other groups?
    Youth of color who commit crimes are referred to as “superpredators,” whereas adult criminals
    who commit white-collar crimes are often portrayed as having been tragically been led astray.
    Think tanks partly funded by unions are often identified as “Union-backed” while think tanks heavily
    funded by business interests are usually not identified as “corporate-backed.”
    Expose the double standard by coming up with a parallel example or citing similar stories that
    were covered differently.
    Do stereotypes skew coverage?
    Does coverage of the drug crisis focus almost exclusively on African Americans, despite the fact
    that the vast majority of drug users are white? Does coverage of women on welfare focus
    overwhelmingly on African-American women, despite the fact that the majority of welfare
    recipients are not black?
    Are lesbians portrayed as “man-hating” and gay men portrayed as “sexual predators” (even
    though a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a family member than by an unrelated
    gay adult-Denver Post, 9/28/92)?
    What are the unchallenged assumptions?
    Often the most important message of a story is not explicitly stated. For instance, in coverage of
    women on welfare, the age at which a woman had her first child will often be reported-the
    implication being that the woman’s sexual “promiscuity,” rather than institutional economic factors,
    are responsible for her plight.
    Coverage of rape trials will often focus on a woman’s sexual history as though it calls her
    credibility into question. After the arrest of William Kennedy Smith, a New York Times article
    (4/17/91) dredged up a host of irrelevant personal details about his accuser, including the facts
    that she had skipped classes in the 9th grade, had received several speeding tickets and-when
    on a date-had talked to other men.
    Is the language loaded?
    When media adopt loaded terminology, they help shape public opinion. For instance, media
    often use the right-wing buzzword “racial preference” to refer to affirmative action programs. Polls
    show that this decision makes a huge difference in how the issue is perceived: A 1992 Louis
    Harris poll, for example, found that 70 percent said they favored “affirmative action” while only 46
    percent favored “racial preference programs.”
    Demonstrate how the language chosen gives people an inaccurate impression of the issue,
    program or community.
    Is there a lack of context?
    Coverage of so-called “reverse discrimination” usually fails to focus on any of the institutional
    factors which gives power to prejudice such as larger issues of economic inequality and
    institutional racism. Coverage of hate speech against gays and lesbians often fails to mention
    increases in gay-bashing and how the two might be related.
    Provide the context.
    Do the headlines and stories match?
    Usually headlines are not written by the reporter. Since many people just skim headlines,
    misleading headlines have a significant impact. A classic case: In a New York Times article on the
    June 1988 U.S.-Soviet summit in Moscow, Margaret Thatcher was quoted as saying of Reagan,
    “Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.” The Times headline: “Thatcher Salute to the
    Reagan Years.”
    Point out the contradiction.
    Are stories on important issues featured prominently?
    Look at where stories appear. Newspaper articles on the most widely read pages (the front
    pages and the editorial pages) and lead stories on television and radio will have the greatest
    influence on public opinion.
    The Media Bias Detector is excerpted from the book Unreliable sources: A Guide to Detecting
    Bias in News Media, written by FAIR’s Martin Lee and Norman Solomon.
    Maybe we all do it? Cheers, Murray.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 2:12 pm

  29. John Dutchie,
    Welcome back and Happy New Year.

    I agree with your comment #26 and convey a long overdue Thank you for bearing the personal and financial cost of hosting MENZ.

    Being socially ostracized, turned down for jobs, promotions and bank loans on specious grounds because of feminist scuttlebutt is no small price to pay for being openly a Men’s Rights Advocate. And that’s in addition to being devastated by the femily caught / domestic violence regime. A huge price to risk paying for openly defying NZ feminism.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 2:48 pm

  30. Dear Skeptic, sorry, I was only thinking of the direct consequences of familycaught$ actions and forgetting the wider implications. I accept your point and thank you for reminding me. In essence, your point leads to the need for mutual support in surviving these outside pressures. Cheers, Murray.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 3:08 pm

  31. It is like living with the media Daleks – We will annihilate the opinion, annihilate the opinion, annihilate the opinion.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 4:25 pm

  32. ts all very similar to what you work against”¦you hear something you dont like so you set about to silence and/or control what you dont like tp hear..sounds like feminism

    Comment by its ford again — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 5:56 pm

  33. News Flash – News Flash! WARNING: Possible Bias or errors or irreverency!!!!!!

    Christchurch Catholic Church have announced that they cannot afford to fully restore the Basilica, after serious earthquake damage.
    Now if the Catholics were prepared to give up sexual abuse of their children, then they would have sufficient funds available to fully restore the Basilica.
    What is most important to them?
    Rape Crisis are complaining that the Government is not allocating as much money to them, as they have asked for (again).
    I don’t see this as very dramatic news. This is exactly what the Government has been doing for nearly the last 20 years. Each year Rape Crisis ask for more and each year the Government gives them a smaller fraction of what they have asked for! Curiously, the fraction is about the same as the ratio of probably occurred rapes over the total number of statistical complaints that could have been made…… Besides, if the service is valuable to women, then they would be prepared to fund it themselves, especially if it refuses to serve men (when paid for by Government funds).
    Women should be taxed higher, to cover these additional costs?
    They asked for it!
    The Rape Crisis spokes”femalepeople” all look pretty well fed, to my eye…
    What is most important to them?
    Maybe Superannuation should be available 7 years before average life expectancy, not at a fixed age?
    Maybe it should be paid out only after the pensioner has died, in cash on demand, countersigned by your parent……..
    If mothers fail to pay child support relatively more often, why don’t we talk about dead-beat mums?
    Actually, small amounts of child support doesn’t worry me enough, to want to hound mothers to suicide.
    – – – – – – Actually, small amounts of child support doesn’t worry me enough, to want to pay to hound fathers to suicide either.

    But dead-beat mums who neglect children, resulting in murderers and rapists does concern me greatly…..
    The hand that rocks the cradle, should be held accountable….
    More importantly, fathers or mothers who aren’t competent or willing to be held accountable, shouldn’t have children left in their care.
    Why do we pay them to do it?
    What is most important to them?
    It would save money to get SPCA to spey (notice the crude rime?) runaway fathers or mothers, even if a few cats missed out.
    Hang a minute, “judges” who aren’t willing to be held accountable for their actions, are unsafe at any speed.
    Who is responsible for leaving children in the care of incompetent parents, waiting for them to damage and crush their happiness and souls?
    Who is responsible for appointing “judges” to work in familycaught$, outside of their professional training and competence?
    What is most important to them?
    I think there is a Human Rights Act. Someone should dynamite the barnacles and cobwebs off it and try to restore it. Could we get it working…..? Maybe it has been disused for too long..
    Someone else I guess, I am feeling too passive and f…….
    What is most important to us?


    I am not sure, maybe I am being unfair?
    If I was accidentally fair, please just tell me. (I won’t change anything, anyway – just like the Judicial Complaints Hider.) Cheers, MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 7th January 2013 @ 6:19 pm

  34. This short documentary is worth watching as it shows what’s happening to some families in Russia, something you will never get to hear about in our controlled mainstream news. It talks about homeless children who in all cases were getting beaten by their step fathers. Their own father not around to look after them; very common in Russia. Russia loses one million people every year in population, including 100,000 from HIV. It also shows how the Ukraine (and other former Soviet countries) are Third World with a super rich elite and a large poor class who are heavily oppressed; something Rockefeller (who funded Western feminism) has openly said is the model they plan for the whole world. Some might remember the Vodka oligarch who came out here to NZ in his 747 two years ago bringing Miss Russia with him. Our media fawned all over him and lauded the fact that his father was the propaganda minister in the former Soviet Republic. Why does no one ask where, in a communist country they got their 100’s of millions from to buy the assets and resources (for pennies on the dollar) – resounding silence! Because in the former Soviet Union they seized all personal property, owned everythingh and hid behind the state. Now they’re out in the open. They got away with it because they controlled all of the news media. Anyhow this is a very shocking video about family life for many in former Soviet States.

    Comment by Doug — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 6:46 am

  35. @JP

    However, attitudes that tar all women with the same brush are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I don’t see any fundimental difference between this and the “all men are bastards” school of feminism which drives NZ social policies.

    Ok, so the raped women can lose faith in men and own a consequential attitude and that’s understandable but not the dispossessed man, (dispossessed of his home, his children, his income, his life) he should not be aForded any understanding. He should toddle off and terminate himself because other men won’t have anything bad said about women – should that reflect badly on themselves.

    There IS a fundamental difference between the above position and the feminist social policy ‘all men are bastards’ and you of all people should know better. It is a divide and conquer strategy. Men hear the constant beat of the drum and say to themselves ‘no, that is not me, that is them, they went to the family court, they lost their children, they failed, their fault’ and they distance themselves from ‘those people’.

    It is a purposeful position to the point where (as I have said before) I was called to a special meeting during my court case to be told ‘if I wasn’t associating with you lot I would get custody of my children’.

    Hans, you’ve thrown your toys out of the cot because Ford said in one line what you said in a whole post (no disrespect there you did a fine job) and JP you’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water adopting the holier than thou feminist attitude – women can do no wrong.

    I understand Menz to be an inclusive site but what you are suggesting JP is not moderation it is censorship and exclusion; meeting your new threshold, you are starting to sound like an apologist; we don’t want contributions from those people.

    I don’t think you are giving readers or potential readers enough credit for being able to differentiate and distinguish between the individual opinions that land on this site.

    If we are headed toward presenting some sort of polite painted facade then I would really start to question the sites viability as a mechanism for (quote the title line) –

    – promoting a clearer understanding of men’s experience –

    If the effect then is to create ‘the only one in the room position’ for people that come here looking for help and support they are probably not going to get it and frankly I consider the lives of New Zealand men more important than a pretty image pandering to a threshold that existed back in the era of the patriarchal-society.

    We live in a feminazi-regime.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 9:49 am

  36. Doug, thank you. I think you have hit an important button. Much of the news is diversion and distraction. I try to keep a perspective, of what is most important, second most important etc. For all of the pain and suffering, as epitomised by the story at the top of this post, we have major governments all around the world who support crony capitalist behaviour, protected by dictatorial regimes, to siphon off extreme wealth from billions of poor people, to tax dodging super-wealthy dictators and their wider families. For what?

    Although NZ caughts are a dangerous extortionate mafia and our Government seems fairly good on corruption, they are relatively benign compared to USA control of Iraqi wealth, USA mainland capitalism, Chinese capitalism under guise of communism, Russian capitalism under guise of communism……, African dictators…

    A thief is just a thief, no matter how well he or she is dressed up. Juan and Eva Peron were eventually exposed for what they really were, just took a while for people to wake up to the evidence.

    Keep your eye on the ball….. I am not saying to ignore these stories of suffering, but to make sure that energy is spread according to the costs of the issue to people and society, rather than the brightness of the blood colour under TV cameras, or the plaintiveness of the moaning and groaning. It takes a lot of care, to listen to the evidence and not be too distracted by the sympathy.

    If the super rich did pay tax, maybe most of these subsidiary issues could be quickly sorted?

    I watched a Fox News “documentary” recently. It came across as republican drivel, very poorly disguised. It horrifies me how easily most USA citizens seem to be manipulated by the owners of entertainment media companies. Maybe BBC isn’t perfect, but I trust them much more than USA entertainment profit media. Especially if Al Jazeera are breathing fire onto them.

    In the same sense, feminism has helped bring some things forward, but in its weak intellectual approach, has ended up doing as much harm as good. We need to unpick it and sort the wheat from the chaff.

    I guess nothing is free, but a “free press” is important to a healthy democracy. I can remember it in NZ, shows how ancient my bare feet are. If we don’t pay to support a “free press”, or “free political parties”, then the crony capitalists can just buy all the stories, fairly tales(=propaganda) and politicians.

    We should start by stripping away the protection of secrecy that our “caughts” have so readily taken up.

    Thanks, Murray.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 12:18 pm

  37. The is a problem when you moderate my comment and that is that it shows as #35 for me and also #35 for Murray’s comment now that he has posted a comment which shows as #36 for me which doesn’t exist for Murray.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 12:44 pm

  38. #36 Down under, you had the same difficulty with your post #23 above in that what I commented upon was removed and replaced by a post by yourself.
    Down Under is known to me although it has been many years since we last met in person. I hope 2013 goes well for you. My youngest is off to University this year. Allan

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 1:21 pm

  39. Good one Murray @36, spot on. I would distinguish crony capitalism from free enterprise. Free enterprise made Americans (and us for a while to a lesser degree) the most prosperous people known. They even had laws against corporate monopolies in the USA. Russia has been under Talmudism since 1917. Carl Marx wrote that communism was an intermediate stage. World Talmudism is the end game. Feminism has been one of their main weapons in creating a gender war and breaking up families. Heroin is one of their main weapons too and it’s just flooding into Europe.

    Comment by Doug — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 2:09 pm

  40. Down Under you say:

    There is a problem when you moderate my comment

    The problem will occur if you reply to numbers rather than a named commenter with a blockquote as I have demonstrated above. I didn’t remove your comment – it was automatically moderated because you used the word feminazi. There is a list of other abusive words that will also stop a comment until I approve it. Comment numbers will change if I remove spam, and they will change if I approve a comment by Ford or others who repeatedly violate the rules of this site.

    I don’t agree with lots of opinions expressed by MENZ contributors, but this is not a reason material gets removed. Actually I would welcome a reasoned argument from a feminist perspective, but as we know this is not how they work.

    Free speech is not a licence to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, nor is it a licence to promote messages that are offensive because they are sexist or racist, etc. I conceed there is an element of subjectivity about where the line is crossed, and I try and be as tolerant as I can. Many men who I dearly wish would contribute to MENZ do not because they think I do not moderate enough and that their reputation would suffer if they were associated with us.

    I should have been clearer when I wrote about expressing anti-women attitudes. I don’t believe actual violence towards women is likely to increase as a result of feminism, but funding for White Ribbon, Rape Crisis, Women’s Refuge etc., etc., is all about public perception, and I don’t want to play into their hands.

    I also think that one of the main reasons the men’s movement has been fairly ineffectual to date is that we don’t treat each other with respect. We are never going to be united on every issue, but if we could learn to work together on a few key strategies (eg: shared parenting), we might make faster progress.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 2:37 pm

  41. @ JP They could comment the same way ‘Luther Blissett’ comments if they wanted to. I notice he makes some valuable comments under a pseudonym. What these ‘valuable commenter’s’ aren’t realising is they have put their own selfishness ahead of the society they will leave their children. It would be over in a day if they could actually see that.

    Comment by Down Under — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 3:33 pm

  42. down under..# 35..great post..your on to it..they carry on like a bunch of spoilt self centered feminists…crack the shits and toss their toys to get their way

    Comment by nzford — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 3:44 pm

  43. JP: The issue referred above with renumbering posts would not occur if the content of offending post was simply replaced with the text ‘post deleted’ or similar ….
    It would also make it clear to anyone watching this site that offensive or abusive posts are not being tolerated, rather than them simply ‘disappearing’.

    Comment by Happy Larry — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 4:44 pm

  44. As John says above #40 (if I can count right?), probably the most useful comment on this page:

    I also think that one of the main reasons the men’s movement has been fairly ineffectual to date is that we don’t treat each other with respect. We are never going to be united on every issue, but if we could learn to work together on a few key strategies (eg: shared parenting), we might make faster progress.

    Teamwork needs more listening than talking and more supporting than leading. It takes a lot of time to put together, so that this must start well before any particular deadline looms into sight. Prima donnas can only lead us backwards. Can we take John’s comment as a challenge for positive collective action? In my own experience, teamwork only seems to work with men who have known each other for 5+ years. Men recently through the familycaught$ mangle don’t seem to be willing to work in teams? Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 8th January 2013 @ 5:10 pm

  45. @Murray I don’t think that is a lack of willingness just that there are a number of issues that collectively contribute to the divisiveness. When you look at shared-parenting based on the numbers of children in the child support system, you have less than one third of the parental population of which 50% might be supportive and 50% most probably not and two thirds of the population wondering what the hell other people are on about. But of the 50% that might be supportive (mostly men) are lost in despair and fouled by the media. Apart from that most people I have talked to, particularly young people, have a very airy-fairy concept that love cures everything. They have no understanding of a legal or social contract and those children that have experienced the social upheaval of parental separation are often looking for someone to blame rather than an understanding of what went wrong.

    It is no slight consequence that the last book of the Old Testament discusses divorce so we shouldn’t be in a hurry to excessively condemn ourselves for not resolving what an is age old problem. One that men didn’t cause, yet one that men are repeatedly condemned for to fuel the excessive entitlements of women.


    Comment by Down Under — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 8:51 am

  46. Dear Down Under, I know that you are right. Even so, to protect our children, it is surely worth doing our best, but without bursting our boilers in the process. Thanks, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 11:01 am

  47. I remove 2 or 3 spam comments every day, one cause of number re-flow. Each one would use up space in the database, which over the years gets increasingly unwieldly and more expensive

    Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 9th January 2013 @ 7:36 pm

  48. Myopia on the way to Utopia. I remember as a child watching Star Trek and of course it was all about phazers on stun and beam me up Scotty. The other side of Gene Roddenberry was his critical eye and his ability to recreate snippets of humanity and its possibilities on a distant planet for each episode. No, I’m not going way off topic here. Hans’ post reminded of a particular episode which takes the concept of ignoring men to its extreme. The crew of the enterprise encountered a finished civilisation, all bright and shiny and complete, full of swanning women doing nothing. As the wry James T Kirk duly noted and commented to Bones, ‘Where are the men, there are no men here.’

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 10th January 2013 @ 10:48 am

  49. The phenomenon of male-bashing is now so excessively prevalent in many societies that people are becoming oblivious to the rampant evolution of media from the traditional deliverers of news into an arbitrary feminist mouthpiece.

    Silencing the victim is the traditional method by which people in power have protected and maintained support for their coercive and criminal activities throughout the ages. Feminists have learnt and indulged in this like any other regime to turn men against each other and against their own best interests but the propaganda is no longer orchestrated – it is an infectious disease in the minds of women.

    Victim-blaming occurs predominantly in issues of class. If you are poor you are seen as being responsible for your own poverty. No system put you there; according to the dominant culture these are your own problems. According this dominant culture if one man should err, all men should be blamed and if one man errs against a woman the world be damned.

    There is also this common notion that pillage of men by the dominant culture of feminism is an acceptable crime and the expectation falls on men to lamely accept their brutalization at the hands of women. The systematic, institutionally sanctioned theft of wages, property, and children goes unpunished because of this ‘victim responsibility’ model. It’s up to you not to be at fault in the eyes of the feminist monster.

    The real function of male-bashing is not simply to take focus away from the feminist perpetrators, but to make sure that those who could help the increasing number of victims don’t. To make sure other cultures believe whatever has transpired is simply inevitable. Men have always been pillaged by war and abused by peace but these feminists expect that we should be raped by the acceptance of our expendability and inferiority.

    Male-Bashing creates irresponsible cowards.

    It creates a world without perpetrators, where men who have been harmed die in shame, guilty of their own termination or are absent without excuse and those who witness, remain unwittingly silent.

    This is an essential part of the cult of antisocial feminism. And it’s time to take a good long look at that cult and the media participation.

    It’s time to bring it down.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 12th January 2013 @ 2:24 pm

  50. I wrote the above post because I knew was coming – it is such predictable Stuff. (pun intended)


    “I think there is a culture of domestic violence, sexual violence against women in New Zealand. I think New Zealand men have a belief of rights to take a woman if they want to,” said Angela McInerney.

    and Broken-wing syndrome.

    One man making his support for women felt agreed.

    “I think it is not only women’s responsibility to speak up against not only rape, but general violence against women, because the perpetrators are men,” said Raj Maharjan.
    “If men like me came in numbers then good women who are doing such things can see that also men are behind us and all men are not like this,” he said.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 12th January 2013 @ 5:20 pm

  51. Typo this was coming.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 12th January 2013 @ 5:25 pm

  52. I agree with parts of that story, men should inform each other against rape, because we should inform each other of not touching a women ever, (unless paying for it)

    Rape or not, false allogations or not, simply being around women can have you in hot water! Men 18 years is a long time to give a 1/3 of your wages to a ho.

    I wonder if nz’s place on that list shows all reported rape or convicted rape and not false allogations included.

    Comment by Too Tired — Sat 12th January 2013 @ 9:13 pm


    Comment by Luther Blissett — Sat 12th January 2013 @ 10:05 pm

  54. Took the test, happy with my results 🙂

    Comment by Too Tired — Sun 13th January 2013 @ 12:32 am

  55. If nothing else the survey highlights the confused ideology of feminism; a persistent search for a new basis on which to claim disadvantage. Women can’t aspire to equality so they will make damn sure men are subjected to their inferiority. It is socially and economically destructive and a psychological unbalanced prescription for life.

    The irony is they would complain about nuclear bombs too but at the end of their feminist extremism they would stand up and tell you ‘the world’s f….d but we’re in charge here.’

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 13th January 2013 @ 8:46 am

  56. I have waded through this, it has affirmed mu knowledge that whatever females do they are correct abd justified – and stuff the facts!

    We should remember that this is an open forum, and be grateful to John for providing it.

    We must also remember X’s and others also troll it. They take a post, suitably “Massage it for their own ends, and it will haunt you for ever!

    For contentious stuff remember Pauls-News and NZFVL Both “hidden” may be safer.

    Comment by Gwahir — Sun 13th January 2013 @ 3:29 pm

  57. No, I don’t think we should go underground; we need a fearless crusader who will expose their plans for world domination through a femileaks website.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 13th January 2013 @ 3:55 pm

  58. By their I take it you mean the white feather brigade and other apologists. The likes of the secret sites are not for that! They offer support for shellshocked men, helping them understand what ts happenind. We are the resistance movement, and hve great mem with us over the years No particular order – The Jims (Bailey and Bagnal) Andrew Wooton (Now promoted to glory) Paul Catton, to name but a few. These men have given their all.

    Those who go first are rarely appreciated unfortunately!

    We fight in the open, but we plot underground!

    Comment by Gwahir — Sun 13th January 2013 @ 4:16 pm

  59. It goes on even today. An exerp from todays paper:-

    Two women, aged 22 and 32, and a 28-year-old man will appear in Masterton District Court today charged with aggravated burglary in connection with the killing of Glen Jones, 40, who was bludgeoned in his home in Fitzherbert St, Featherston shortly after midnight on Saturday.

    I’ll try and follow this one!

    Comment by Gwahir — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 7:20 am

  60. @Gwahir

    It goes on even today. An exerp from todays paper:-

    What goes on even today?

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 8:33 am

  61. You could try following the link! Today (Monday) it says:- Three people charged in connection with the killing of Featherston man Glen Jones allegedly entered his house with a wooden bat and an axe handle.

    Two women, aged 32 and 22, and a 28-year-old man were granted interim name suppression when they appeared before Judge Mary O’Dwyer in the Masterton District Court this afternoon. The trio – wearing blue boiler suits – stood silently side-by-side in the dock with their heads bowed.

    Comment by Gwahir — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 3:51 pm

  62. I am not sure what you are pointing to? Women offenders, supression, gender bias. I can read the report but I am not sure what specifically you might be highlighting. Just asking.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 7:21 pm

  63. #53.. wat a biased survey. Also its results as well..

    Comment by kirannjiharr — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 8:12 pm

  64. Dear Gwahir,

    I appreciate and am humbled that I am a named person as being participant in resisting feminist national socialism.
    I never plotted underground and have always fought in the open against the Systemic Abuse towards a father.
    I think that I have a fairly good record considering the numerous litigation both civil and criminal that were faced, with an attempted suicide from the criminal charges also led to further criminal charges,
    Jim Bagnall reckons my case hit 10/10 on the outrage scale and he’s not witnessed too much worse.
    We prevailed.

    I remain as always.

    In Kindest Regards

    Paul Catton
    South Auckland Refuge for Men with Families
    (09) 269 4411

    Comment by Paul Catton — Mon 14th January 2013 @ 11:00 pm

  65. And thank you Paul. The more the recognised leaders of injustices towards males unite and learn to speak with one voice the sooner We shall overcome.

    Also I wish an apology in my earlier post #58 I omited one person. Always the problem when you start naming. That MAN being Murray Bacon. My apologies Murray, how could I forget you! I note I am different to those named yet I am known to you! Having just endured a slanderous attack from some females, I prefer to stay quiet!

    Let us encourage one another and offer protection as necessary.

    None are or seek leadership, yet collectively gentlemen you speak with much wisdom.

    I believe neither of the Jims are on line. Could somebody be kind enough to draw their attention to these posts. Now as I proof read I ponder manu more names come to mind, But I stop there. We remember those who have gone before. Springing to mind are Paul Robertson, Another Paul (My feeble brain has forgotten his surname) Darryl, and others.

    United we shall stand!

    Comment by Gwahir — Tue 15th January 2013 @ 8:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar