Males Failing in a Woman’s World
Interesting to see this on the front page of the Stuff website on a Sunday morning.
Men Failing in a Woman’s World
What’s even more interesting, is that a reporter sought the opinion of a masculist crusader.
comments were sparked by new research showing New Zealand blokes get a “raw deal” in education, health and wellbeing.
Men are more likely to fail at school, ditch university, end up in prison and commit suicide than women, according to the AUT study.
Meanwhile, females are racing ahead in education, commanding flexible working conditions and have longer life expectancy.
Self-described masculist Kerry Bevin said the women’s rights movement went too far and men are paying the price in the “feminist aftermath”.
We should not however, ripple with excitement, simply because the media has had one its occasional sympathetic bents towards male oppression – it’s happened before.
Be prepared for the counter attack.
Putting male issues front and centre on a news site, is like having a man in the room at a child-safety conference. He needs to be ridiculed, removed and reminded that he’s forgotten his place in the scheme of things.
A media report such as this, will inflame the delicate tempers of the petty-pussy brigade who make it their life’s ambition to remind their sisters that they are still down trodden, disrespected and disadvantaged.
They are yet to come to terms with the reality that they are neither down trodden or disadvantaged and are disrespected for reasons of which they have no understanding (the female social-disease of selfcentredness) something that should now be a mandatory learning experience at tertiary level.
You can’t criticise these state soldiers for being lazy or lacking in dedication and enthusiasm in the process of dispatching their duties.
This is of course, where a fundamental problem in male equality lies – the inbred and fanatical philosophy that determines what work actually is.
Work for as long as men have existed is about survival and advancement (they had you fooled with the protect and provide thing, didn’t they, go on admit it) however in the minds of these malevolent bureaucrats it can only be work, if it in some way, continues or advances the position of women rather than improving the nature of society – which in the context of society is self-destructive.
If you have ever had a sensible conversation with an MP (which is a far rarer occurrence than a conversation with a sensible MP) about this issue, they will tell you, the rabid brigade of feminasties is well established in the capital and has been for better part of two decades.
There is no political will to change the status-quo whilst politicians have the perception it might cost an election.
Yet, many among the general population understand our house to be one of disrepute with close to half the general population considering it ill-advised to encourage this behaviour with a vote.
I still think we have a way to go before we will see any obvious change of direction and the question for me, is whether change will be driven by a political will to re-engage the population, or the population’s violent rejection of our current social destiny.
Erling Rasmussen, AUT University professor of work and employment, said while there is debate around increasing women’s representation on corporate boards, little attention is given to the widening gap between men and women.
He wrote the research paper – due to be published in next month’s NZ Journal of Employment Relations – to highlight education and wellbeing issues for the modern man. “There has been some fundamental shifts in society particularly in education. Men are dropping out of the statistics.”
Does anyone here have a copy of this research paper?
Someone will lose their job for this!
But seriously let’s await the usual male bashing articles that will quickly follow in the next few days.
Or am I too cynical?
The equality message is the right chord. It remains to be seen if a political party or sole MP will pick up and run with this important but uncommon media headline.
Political parties think very carefully about what might be the best wining new ideas a year out from an election. Put them in order and that’s your campaign. Some just pay raw cash to get the vote. MPs currency is votes and while being in the news is important for them, opening a war front against the hard-core feminist machine which they have supported for 30 years could bring about a nasty battle and tax problems for the Government.
i.e. A more balance and just system for paying over the top child support to mothers who have a new lover(s), overseas trips etc. All without allowing dads fair access to their kids. Fairly soul destroying for men who I have no doubt commit suicide as a means of escaping an awful situation.
Making a law to employ 50% male teachers in schools is a golden gate bridge too far. While it would put an adult male in front of children as a role model it would mean lost of jobs and total industry control for woman.
Giving free examinations for male health problems as they do for breast cancer. Again a tax burden to consider.
Addressing the issue of 87% of males who are acquitted of sexual crimes (and those are just the ones who made it to court). While some a genuine cases, it’s the silver bullet easy option for woman to accuse men with a false allegation with little or no evidence. Another source of revenue for solicitors and pain for men that can end in male suicide. Perhaps agreeing that a false allegation is just as devastating to a man and rape is and should carry the same penalty for the accuser.
We need laws in place to help fix up the problems. If any campaign stuck to the equality message it should work out fine for those who dare take the sisterhood on.
If you look at the parliamentary debate (recorded in Hansard) for the recent Child Support Amendment Act, it is exemplary of the absence of male perspective along with any consideration of the impact this law may have on child-support payers (overwhelmingly men) and therefore the consequences this law has for society.
It is absolute willing-blindness and collaboration amongst politicians that creates this pretence that the issue does not exist and therefore does not need to be debated.
One MP did mention the fact that it was the suicide of a self employed New Zealand Father in Australia (absent of our suicide suppression regime) that brought this legislation before parliament. (The media of another country!)
That is the accepted flippant predisposition of our political/judicial system toward men.
Look at current Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, who has been studiously ripped to bits by opposition parties and the media for a conflict of interest issue and warned by the Prime Minister for her behaviour and then her involvement in the Child Support Act.
She is not even the minister in charge of this act, yet she launched a substantial change under the guise of legal aid amendments (posted here) before the Child Support Act accidentally arrived in parliament – although she was caught out, she said nothing and no-one else said anything either. The entire debate of the Child Support Amendment bill went ahead while that section was in another bill already before parliament.
Then, after the Child Support Act passed, Collins’ amendment slides into the Child Support Act, amongst the hoorahs of International women’s day – WITHOUT debate.
That is not only a conflict of interest for a tax lawyer but also interference in another ministry, an abuse of parliamentary process, deception of the public,
and not one opposition MP said boo.
What’s more, a biased media, who have forgotten they have a responsibility to inform the public, never said Ã¢â‚¬Ëœboo’ either.
(Note for Scrap_the_CSA the draft link to hansard I put in a comment on your post has changed, but the new one is included above if you want to change yours)
How hard is it to take a formula that currently says [Parent 1 Income] – [living Allowance] * [18% for 1 child, 21% for 2 children etc] and pay that to [Parent 2],
and change it into a formulae that says [Parent 1 Income] + [Parent 2 Income] – [2 x living Allowances] * [18% for 1 child, 21$ for 2 children etc]= Assumed Child Raising Cost.
then [ 1 – (Nights with parent 1 / 365)] = Parent 1 %age contribution to Assumed Child Raising Cost
and [ 1 – (Nights with parent 2 / 365)] = Parent 2 %age contribution to Assumed Child Raising Cost
When Parent 1 %age > Parent 2 %age, Parent 1 pays the difference to Parent 2 and vice-versa.
What the above says, if Parent 1 has the children 100 nights (27%) , they contribute 73% of total child costs.
Parent 2 has the children 265 nights (73%), they contribute 27% of total costs.
Ergo Parent 1 pays 73% – 27% = 46% of what they would be assessed, to the other parent.
Now, before you all rush of to critique, correct, revise, offer alternative calculations, my point is not the mathematical accuracy of what I have just detailed.
In the main, the revised formula proposed by Peter DunneNun covered two key points: Men with less than about half of child nights each year (and above about a quarter), could expect to see a lower Child Support bill in reflection of the number of nights they cared for their children; and Men who’s ex’s are working, could expect to see a lower Child Support bill because the mother’s incomes would now be taken into account.
HOW HARD IS IT for IRD to change their systems to code a formula such as above, into their systems?
And why, therefore, is the revised formulae now delayed a year?
Is it because in the main the changed formulae largely only affects men, who may in some cases (like me) be likely to pay substantially less under the revised formulae, and therefore it doesn’t matter (because I’m male) that I am unfairly penalised an extra year?
If there was any genuine concern for men being subjected to an unfair penalty regime – the changes to the penalty regime (which won’t take effect until 2016) could have been put through at the same time as Judith (Creamy) Collins had her dubious amendment passed into law.
They had a comments section open on this article also.
So a mascuilst is just another word for sexist mysoginist, who appears to have some bizarre misguided belief that we”re living in a woman’s world??! When there is wage equality, better recognition of the biological reality of it being women who have to be the child bearer (and therefore should be given much better maternity protections and pay), and more women in positions of authority in business and in public life, then we might have some ‘balance, fairness, and common sense’, which he so desires. His attempt to blame kiwi blokes’ poorer performance in education and health on Helen Clark is preposterous beyond belief. I’m surprised he’s given any publicity. He certainly doesn’t speak for this equalitist kiwi bloke!
And this was written by a man – doesn’t sound like it to me.
The above news article has now attracted nearly 100 comments.
But I love this one:
OK, let me see if I’ve got this right. Men want equality, which essentially means acknowledging and accepting their differences and different approaches and ways. and being treated equally.
And Puppy11 essentially thinks that in order for men to be accepted, they must do thing women’s way (and therefore lessen the likelihood of non-acceptance and subsequent suicide).
Puppy11 again :
Now, feminism might actually offer some good elements. But that does not mean men have to become feminist and adopt the practice, ways and teaching of feminism. Its actually ok to be fundamentally different.
Puppy11 blithely ignores the reality that boys learn differently from girls, and schools simply do not seem interested in teaching boys in a way that reaches them (whereas a generation or two back, they managed to teach boys, but not girls).
Puyppy11 borders on scathing of the male victims of suicide – in effect blaming them for their own tragedy.
I could go on, but suffice to say, Puppy11 would do more good towards men by accepting their differences and treating them equally, rather than simply blaming them for their own plight. God pity any boys Puppy11 might ever have. God pity any male she may be related to who ever commits suicide.
“Seriously, feminism is a man’s best friend.”
That one still has me laughing, I mean it’s not even a woman’s best friend. I see the comments are no longer there.
The comments were shut off even while someone was still moderating. They eventually got up too 128 but we obviously won’t get to see the rest.
What amused me was the intense retaliation against Kerry Bevin and from the picture, people assumed the article came from sports journalist, Phil Gifford aka Loosehead Len.
I don’t think a lot of people realised the journalist was actually Marika Hill (great deception with the picture)and her name written in small letters at the top.
When you look at the comments, the responses weren’t a great add for feminism. Not surprised it got shut down.
The comments were apparently closed off, as apparently this is too controversial a topic for mainstream media.
@Ashish – you may be right.
Got a story, become an author, and tell it how it is.
What gets me most is just how vehemently women will rally to fight against those that rattle the mantle of feminism. Very quickly it becomes an all-out blame game that, in summary, men are responsible for all the ills in the world; men must solve their own problems, and clearly, anyone who questions feminism, is simply a patriarchal misogynistic bastard. Oh and by the way, feminism is the only solution to all past institutionalised patriarchal sexism and sexual discrimination.
It seems to me that a lot of their argument is akin to ‘Im allowed to hit you because you hit me’ – or worse still, ‘Im allowed to hit you, because somewhere sometime in your past, you probably hit someone (whom I probably never met) and even if you didnt, you probably thought about it!’.
Time to go get my balls cut-off, I think.
This news article brings to mind the “experts opinion” on the Dunedin murder-suicide from Dr Ruth Busch and Dr Neville Robertson “They always kill themselves, that’s the classic New Zealand way,”
And both agreed “It’s really a tactic of power and control to threaten suicide”.
I am not a expert but I bet the astute would agree that when you are served up such a raw deal and there is nowhere to turn to for help, no support structure, no male compassion and when you are at the end of your tether and can’t get fair justice, can’t take it anymore, that’s when a suicide or murder suicide takes place. Even from a well-balanced man.
How on earth can you call it a tactic for “power and control” particularly when it’s a straight suicide when the person doing it has no control because he’s knows he’s going to be dead and have zero power or control from that moment.
Yes a mere oversight Dr Neville Robertson and Dr Ruth Busch have overlooked in their assessment.
I would argue a murder suicide is a simple end and pay back for a raw deal and a suicide is an escape from a life of pain and misery.
There’s no need to be ashamed Neville that you identified the trend early on and hitched your wagon to the feminist opinion to keep your job and help work your way up to become a law professor. Its good business move, great for the wallet. You made it to the top by not taking into account men’s anguish for raw deals and called male suicide a reach for “power and control”.
And Ruth, how about reviewing your stance of “classic way of NZ men” and take each case individually, look at what they went through before they went berserk. Or do you still want to take the path that it has become so common place now days the classic way to treat NZ men as sub human with no little or rights and you expect them to commit suicide as a form of power and control?
I suggest your new project is to counter some of the raw deals both men and some woman get at the hands of the existing, trends, law and justice system or at the very least if you want to carry it on as it is put in place some sort of safety net around male victims so they don’t go crazy.
To be as frank as I can – Both of you have lots of “classic” statistics on how far you can push a man before he commits suicide.
I maintain the simplest way is to make sure both parties get a fair break. It works great for long term business relationships. And while it involves a little less of that ohh so power and control for woman it will save life, potential save families and open the way forward for a better NZ.
My heart goes to the people involved in the case I am talking about.
12 yes if you disagree with a feminist you are a misogynist!
The joke is guys just want a fair go.
that’s all, not even trying to take over the world. 🙂
#12 well said. There are a lot of women out there fighting a gender war that exists in their heads and any damage they can do to any man is considered to be a blow for the cause. The irony is that what they call the “patriarchy” is the enemy of most men, the so called “1%”. I can’t see any way out of this mess, other than to be very wary when dealing with women.
The Nanny State Motto
Steal his coin
Lay his coffers bare
Take his children
Concerned not welfare
Let him work not
Free trade is of the past
Call it unsustainable
Make certain he will not last
For being a simple man
Not part of our final plan
Wakey.. wakey….. mums and dads, read what else they have in store for parents…… control the environment and they have total control over you – global WARN – ING – did you know in some states in the US its ILLEGAL to COLLECT RAIN WATER, when will this happen here……
Some NZ towns are already being forced to connect to the town supply or else……
Now lets look at Detroit – a test exercise – training – to see how this can be implemented and rolled out in other locations……
Already I am hearing from residents in Central OTAGO – water rates will be in excess of $2000 per house in ten years – higher than or equal to the ground rates……. all deliberate – so as to drive you back into the city – as per Agenda 21 – where you are forced to live in a rabbit warren and be completely and totally unable to survive without help…….totally reliant on the state for everything…..
This is where it’s leading – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4MIMgtVWlY
“The Telford campus, which specialised in agricultural training, had gone from having 16 per cent females in 2010 to 50 per cent in 2015.” So where have all the males gone? Is it now policy not to bother trying to have male education participation. Guess our job now will be sperm doners and low paid child support slaves.
“All seven of its elected executive board are female students.” Modern democracy at work. Celebrating absolute bigotry as an achievement.