Oh Wait, There’s More
Children thrown from bonnet – mother charged
Actually, this one’s been referred to previously here on MENZ Issues but we liked the photo.
So this mother drives quite fast around a park with two young children on the bonnet and crashes the car as shown. It could easily have been fatal for one or both children, but luckily they escaped significant injury. So what’s sexist about this article?
Well, as pointed out previously, the police officer’s comment “Personally I’m appalled at that kind of behaviour” suggested that others might not be. If any man had behaved this way police would likely refer to his stupidity and irresponsibility, but such punches are pulled when it comes to a female. Further, “The matter has been referred to Child Youth and Family Services for their consideration”. Well, if CYFS are happy to return a child to a mother who a few months before cut its throat in an effort to kill, they probably won’t be too worried about this stupid joy rider risking her children’s lives. Quite frankly, if the driver had been the father the article would have read “A protection order has been issued to prevent contact between the father and children while the matter is investigated”.
Preschool upset male teacher has to leave NZ
This government and previous ones have gone to great lengths to encourage women into jobs that men tend to do, such as police, armed forces, engineering, trades. But we simply don’t see much in the way of encouragement or initiatives to try to balance genders in employed roles heavily dominated by women. This government now shows its true sexist colours by refusing to recognize that there is a male skill shortage in ‘early childhood education’. So it deports one of the few males, and a highly valued one, qualified for that role. Oh, it’s that Immigration Department with a female minister again showing its commitment to gender equality.
Now we’re done.
Oh, here’s another interesting one:
Appalling racist rant caught on tape
This particular US representative of the gentle sex shows how responsible and caring females are. For females, losing their temper is acceptable, “there there, we understand”. For males, losing their temper is not ok, “we don’t excuse your violence because of loss of self-control”. For females, such verbal violence in front of children is no problem; if a man did exactly the same thing onlookers would phone authorities who would be there in a flash to charge him with something and to remove his children from him. The fact that this woman threatened various forms of physical violence towards a man who was not threatening her at all, and that she even attempted to solicit homicide doesn’t seem to have bothered the authorities there much; after all, it was only a male she wanted killed.
Each day we are regaled with further transparent examples of sexism in NZ. It’s impossible to keep up with it. We really need one or two paid employees to work for the men’s movement. The feminists have many such employees, funded by taxpayers in our universities, women’s services, violence prevention indoctrination centres and so forth.
Todays news stories include one about a female cop charged with her male partner for assaulting his sister. The female judge gives her the pussy pass of name suppression to protect her job, and gives her partner name suppression to protect the female accused’s job too. The article gets on the pussy pass bandwagon with its headline “Constable charged with ‘hair pulling’ assualt“, attempting to trivialize this woman’s alleged violence even though the exact nature and range of the alleged assaultive behaviour is not made clear.
Of more importance politically was this article giving voice to several anti-male groups calling for ‘more robust’ enforcement of protection orders. The newspaper did not seek any other views on the matter, content to provide a platform for ill-considered feminist ideology. Jill Proudfoot from ‘Shine’ claimed that protection orders are a useful tool. Her claim is not supported by the evidence that suggests protection orders provoke pretty well as much murder and serious violence as they might inhibit. That was always predictable. If you shut down people’s right to communicate with a significant other about emotionally important matters such as their children, you can only expect anger to build to extreme levels in some cases. Protection orders appear to ‘protect’ only when the respondent was never at much risk of committing serious violence. They ‘protect’ the applicant only from the inconvenience of having to discuss matters with the respondent. Where the respondent really does have a propensity toward serious violence, protection orders can only inflame the situation and make the most serious violence more likely.
Proudfoot’s call to enforce protection orders ‘more robustly’ comes without much elaboration. These man-haters would be quite content to see any male accused by a female imprisoned by default until their case is heard (i.e. refused bail), and for all protections against false conviction (of males) to be removed in trials. For that matter, they would be happy to see men summarily convicted and punished on the say of any woman. Proudfoot refers to the danger particularly presented by ‘abusers’ like Rajeshwar Singh who showed obsessive behaviour such as phoning the ‘protected’ ex wife 38 times in 26 minutes. His calls were said to be abusive and threatening. Well yes, perhaps he was just a abuser aiming to torment her, but perhaps being hung up on repeatedly after being told a protection order disallowed him from discussing his concerns about a relationship, children, property etc led to very high levels of anger and frustration.
The recent changes to family law will go some way to reduce this problem and are likely to improve safety on average.
The final twist to this news story was its report that the murdered woman slept with a knife and a meat cleaver. So it wasn’t only the man who showed violence propensity.