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

Equality in New Zealand

Filed under: Gender Politics,General — Downunder @ 8:16 am Tue 26th August 2014

A Stuff Nation Assignment running at the moment – Are Women Equal in New Zealand poses questions about equality:

Maybe you think the fight for equality has gone too far the other way and it’s now men who are discriminated against in some areas…?

What do you think it would take, and what should we all be doing, for men and women to be seen as equals?

The assignment is open – meaning you can contribute if you have signed up for a STUFF identity.

If you do contribute, you may also like to add that contribution to the comments below so we can compare our thoughts with what turns up on STUFF.

Link to the contributions page

See what STUFF contributors thought.


  1. Maybe if a guy brandished a knife in a domestic incident, and argued that the woman grabbed the knifed, and pulled it into her and killed her, and the court bought the whole story that the deceased ultimately killed herself through some form of dramatic provocation.

    And that the police left it there, and didn’t think the production of a knife in a domestic violence incident resulting in death was a blame-worthy event worthy of further charge.

    But ho,hum – switch the sexes and try and re-invent that story!

    There’s no such thing as equality in NZ. It’s a nursery rhyme.

    Men die 5 years younger. They didn’t used to 100 years ago.
    The prisons are 90% men.
    There are 4 male suicides to 1 female suicide.
    Men get harsher sentences for the same crime in court than women every time.
    Universities graduate fewer men than women every year.

    Women have superb reproductive rights, men have none. No woman can be made a mother against her will – men are made fathers against theirs every day.

    The astonishing thing is that hordes of folk actually laugh when you pour such simple facts over their ignorant, uncomprehending skulls.

    And then they wonder how we could have been such hypocrites a generation or two back, about blacks, homos, arabs and other undesirables.

    They just don’t seem to know what an undesirable is, and that being male today is exactly that.

    Comment by rc — Tue 26th August 2014 @ 6:45 pm

  2. Dear rc, expecting people to quickly understand implications and consequences to unfamiliar scenarios is generally expecting far too much.

    If you could nail your listener to their perch and lead them through the policy or legislation, describe an obviously common demographic and work patiently through the implications and outcomes, then you might get understanding, eventually. (You could gestate a baby quicker.)

    Unfortunately, you aren’t meant to nail the people you desire to persuade to their perch, so mostly they will make good their escape, when you take a breath part way in setting up the situation. This is long before getting to anything useful.

    But you don’t need to worry, karma has a way of eventually getting to even the most determined bigots. Their son or daughter or niece or nephew will one day fall into one of these holes in the footpath. It is just that on average it takes about 25 years, say 2 degenerate generations. (Perhaps optimistic, maybe 3 or 4 generations for the less common scenarios…)

    So, a few decades later, the popular wisdom is slowly catching up on what is going on and develops sufficient pressure to make politicians take note. By then, the problem may be so entrenched and damaging, that politics does a dangerous overswing and we lurch drunkenly into an excess of policy in the opposite direction. This is equally problematic and does as much social harm, as was done in the previous 3 or 4 generations.

    I am not meaning to be pessimistic. There are drugs for this I believe, but I prefer the others….

    Entertainment media sometimes gives good quality renditions about social issues and sometimes follows through with good quality illustrations of the implications and outcomes. Surprisingly to me, Coronation Street has had several exemplary examples and a few poor ones too. Ten steps forward and nine steps back.

    The Insider beautifully portrays the uneducation distributed by the nicotine addiction delivery industry, until the truth slowly eventually seeped out and influenced policy. It is important to understand these knowledge diffusion processes and work to speed them up.

    Most people are willing to be detained for huge numbers of hours, in deadly sedentary positions, listening to entertainment programmes. Sometimes they even pay for it.

    Societies that chase profit and greed, cripple the social value of their entertainment media and trample around the world like bulls in china shops, setting themselves up as righteous targets. Can’t think of who they are at the moment, but Russia and Uk come to mind and another big country too.

    Handfuls of suicide bombers can help to clarify minds, but it doesn’t always work as desired. Its fun anyway.

    MurrayBacon – fast axe murderer and slow educator.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 26th August 2014 @ 10:27 pm

  3. Murray, generally suicide bombing tends to backfire!

    they always blame the bomber and the media never even asks the question: “What drove them to that?”.

    Men have always been cannon fodder and woman have always profited from men’s labour. Feminism is anti-male hate cult. And only an idiot would not realise all those females who don’t speak out against our feminist ‘Domestic Violence’ lies i mean laws and the anti-male bias of the cops and Judges and media etc etc are also against male children. This proves they are psychopaths as they have no empathy for males and knowingly drive males to suicide in astronomical numbers.

    Comment by Phil Watts — Wed 27th August 2014 @ 11:52 am

  4. Dear Phil, essentially we are agreeing. There is a reasonable amount of success in suicide bombing. Maybe only 20%, but if lives are cheap, cheap, cheap, then this is still well worthwhile. Lets aim as high as we can, as high as a kite! Reality is a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs.

    So lets not worry about glasses only 80% full?

    Love and kisses,
    MurrayBacon – frustrated axe murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 27th August 2014 @ 6:02 pm

  5. #2 in post above I was unkind to our american friends about the quality of social education in their drama programmes.

    I have been shown examples in USA drama that have positive social education value, ER for one.

    My ignorance stems from mainly watching USA thriller paranoia drama Person of Interest and shunning flash trash and murder shows from anywhere, I guess due to my inappropriate guilt/shame hangups and not wishing to further exacerbate my impulse control problems.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 28th August 2014 @ 12:30 pm

  6. Should I edit #6 and add [Murray Bacon – Unpredictable Axe-murderer]

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 28th August 2014 @ 12:35 pm

  7. #7 Goes without saying, darling. Impulse control problems = unpredictable, least of all by self, unfortunately…..

    In my opinion true equality would destroy humanity. We are two parallel species carefully setup with insufficient communication to protect us from primevil instincts to reproduce like factories. If we were exactly the same, we couldn’t be near each other long enough for anything useful to happen.

    Anyway, equality is missing the point.

    The point is we gain value by diversity, surprisingly so through all the types of diversity, whether we care to acknowledge this or not? Maybe this threatens many people, who then show their magnanamity by threatening those whose very existence threatens their own ignorant comfort. Evolution values species survival, not the comfort of any individual and gambles in a way that is merciless to the individuals trapped in any particular gamble. Cruelty with winners and losers. Sometimes with both winner and loser in the same individual, but by different factors.

    I cannot see that we should aim at anything but equality of opportunity?

    Evolution usually works over many generations. Labour seem to be showing in weeks how evolution can take a virile (masculine) created party into gay death in just weeks. The only remaining question is will they drag the Greens down with them, by proximity?

    All to be revealed in a few weeks….

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 28th August 2014 @ 1:26 pm

  8. A great new article from Karen Straughan pretty much summing up what the Stuff Nation Staff need to know.
    It’s also a great primer for anyone wanting to know about today’s growing men’s movement.

    Here is Karen Straughan’s (AKA Girl Writes What)Youtube channel.

    Please disseminate far and wide.

    Comment by Skeptic — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 6:35 am

  9. Hi Skeptic (#9); thank you for that link. A very well articulated summary of just how it is to be a western male in a feminist constructed “prison”. I only have one question (rhetoric); why was it that a woman had to come up with what, I think, will be remembered as one of the greatest quotes of all time?

    “The purest testament to the forbearance of men and their love of women is that it has taken 150 years for them, as a collective, to get pissed off enough to return fire.”

    Comment by Bruce S — Mon 1st September 2014 @ 3:07 pm

  10. I can’t understand why Stuff isn’t publishing any responses to their assignment on equality. It makes it look like nobody bothered to write in.

    This was my contribution:

    Equality will likely always be a controversial subject, but also a dangerous political beast if we don’t treat it with respect.

    There is a need for both men and women to have some literacy around equality. This constant meddling with policy is not debated law in parliament and that undermines both social awareness and democratic process.

    One argument says; that by the turn of the millennium we had simultaneously a female governor general, prime minister, chief justice and attorney general. How can there not be equality when women reach the highest offices in the country, while others achieve international standing in their respective fields?

    Helen Clark is NOT the only New Zealand female academic to achieve some form of international recognition.

    Of course that’s only equality in a man’s world isn’t it?

    There’s another argument from radical feminists; that there can never be true equality unless the world changes to suit women and so ‘inequality’ attracts a constant flow of policy initiatives based on the supposition that women are permanent victims in a world that will never treat them as equals.

    We don’t see political initiatives addressing say, gender imbalance in primary education, but we do see political initiatives with the nearest piece of dodgy research in tow, to advance the unfinished causes of women; the often denied but well-documented arrest the male at domestic-incidents police policy is a good example.

    There is either an unacceptable visibility test or a visibility test that these policies fail because they lean towards this supposed inequality suffered by women and that’s accompanied by a festering sense of injustice from the occasions on which men suffer the consequential effects of these policies.

    This invariably leads to some aberration in the law when our courts attempt to defend these policies from within the justice system; we risk defeating the rule of law system, which although not perfect has served us well enough through our more civilised moments in history.

    This is something the British media has been much more in tune with recently, certainly this year anyway, and something we should consider trying here.

    Men have long been the victims of society – they have always been disposable – but the extremes of feminism now make women constantly victims within society, requiring some form of remedy from government.

    On the political agenda it is right up there with pictures of politicians kissing babies at election time.

    It’s a dangerous political game; a game best not left in the hands of a radical minority or treated as such by politicians and one that should not remain unchallenged in the media.

    Comment by Had_a_Go — Wed 3rd September 2014 @ 9:32 am

  11. Special thanks for #9, #10 and #11.

    I think the events in WINZ Ashburton show how repeatedly dropping people off the tail end of priority lists can reinforce individual mental health problems, or said differently was it the individual’s problem or a wider and more general social problem brought into relief by one example of many? I see the latter.

    Maybe the gunman was expecting too much, or was he offered too little. I suspect both.

    Damaging children by society wide neglect, of children in houses where they are neglected and their development is neglected, creates many problems with individuals – or individuals with problems.

    It is PC to protect the carers of the children, not the children. (Mainly mothers who are problems and who, without extensive social supports, would be just as much of a problem as the individuals who were pushed off the priority lists by Housing NZ and WINZ. Similarly people denied mental health help, by restricted and diverted medical funding. It isn’t a real problem, it is all in your mind…. Suck it up and Pull yourself together. The bullets were real though?)

    But the WINZ man didn’t get the opportunity to create and develop several little individual problems, to be let out into the world in a dangerous state……to go on and injure many citizens, damage property and terrorise people…….

    I am not meaning to just bitch, but to say that our social problems need to be faced, not just part funded and forgotten.

    If parents cannot properly care for their children, IT IS NOT OK to fund them and put them in a state house, forget the children’s needs and hope for the best.

    To protect the children, we cannot allow unskilled, damaged and dangerous parents to drive out the other parent from the children’s lives, to strengthen their own ego and maximise their freedom.

    Protecting children requires accountability, between parents and if necessary to the Government too.

    If the protection of the children requires maintaining active and working children’s relationships with both of the parents and their families, then this is what we must make happen, every day. Putting this in legislation and forgetting about it, just lets children be damaged.

    The quicker the familycaught$ is gone, the safer our children can be.
    The familycaught$ refuses to honour fathers requests for accountability, to protect their children. Many of these times, the father would be a safer sole parent for these children, if it had to come to that.
    Replace familycaught$ with people who will follow the law and act for children’s interests.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 3rd September 2014 @ 10:49 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