Roger Sutton: Another Scalp for Feminism
In a joint statement, Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel and Christchurch City Council chief executive Karleen Edwards expressed sadness at the loss of “a stand-out leader for our city and region”.
Yet one of these women was part of the Clark government that was responsible for much of the feminist excess that has made New Zealand unsafe for males and has now given rise to the resignation of the man she is lauding, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority boss Roger Sutton. Although we don’t know the full story, a female colleague made a formal complaint against him for sexual harassment that he claims was his normal behaviour to most people and consisted of hugs, ‘inappropriate’ jokes and comments and calling women ‘honey’ and ‘sweetie’.
Feminism has convinced women that they have a right to be protected from feeling uncomfortable or offended, and if they do feel those things it’s never their responsibility but someone else’s. Feminism has convinced women that they have the right to determine how men should behave and what men’s morality should be, but never the converse. Feminism has convinced women they have the right to decide what is ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ and to rule much normal male behaviour as ‘inappropriate’. Under feminist lobbying the concept of harassment has been broadened to ridiculous yet poorly-defined extremes, making it available as a convenient weapon in the war against men.
Roger Sutton sacrificed a significant amount of salary to serve the Christchurch community in dealing with its crisis, and he has been almost universally praised and appreciated because his talents have enabled him to do the job unusually well. His positive, compassionate, informal, somewhat irreverent personality contributed to this. The Christchurch recovery effort has now lost him.
His response has been clever. He resigned, admitting his behaviour by describing it in sufficient detail to highlight the silliness of the complaint but speaking almost as if he had committed an heinous crime against humanity. He apologized for ‘hurting’ people. This was the response of a good loser, probably disingenuous but done well. The effect will be that most people will see him as having been treated unfairly and stupidly by the complaint and by the system that dealt with it. A fascinating example of P.R.
The truth may well be that he can no longer be bothered continuing his hard, talented and effective work for the Christchurch recovery and his kind and supportive treatment of his staff, when the system he works under allows him to get kicked in the teeth for his efforts.
Does anyone know the name of the woman who complained? It’s time she fronted up and told her side of the story. Depending on what that is, it may be time she heard some sensible comment about the feminist ideology that motivated her malicious actions. She has damaged the recovery effort for Christchurch, something perhaps a tad more important than her own self-centred indignation. To be fair, a larger part of the blame should be directed towards the relevant laws and processes that have developed from flawed feminist ideology and its lobbyists, and we can only hope that this sad saga leads to changes.
Another great “ism” destroyed many a good civil servant and citizen across the USSR and its satellite nations from 1917 till 1989. we ain’t seen nothin yet!!!
“Another one bites the dust”
I have started calling “Sir” and “Madam” to all workmates at work.
It’s obvious Sutton’s resignation caught the fems off-guard – seeing a man come out the victim isn’t familiar territory to them. So all they’re left with is a blanket accusation of the entire investigating team, and the process they were instrumental in putting into place.
What they probably haven’t noticed is how easily one of their number gets to publish such a large hit-piece with nothing behind her but a personal opinion.
Unaddressed, of course, is the wider issue of why men should care about what women are concerned about, when it’s becoming increasingly apparent that women don’t care about our concerns.
There once was a word that rhymed with ‘tigger’, a word that is now almost so offensive to some people, we can not safely print it here.
So if ‘sweetie’ and ‘honey’ are now to be expunged from adult interactions, where should we start? No man should call his lover ‘honey’? No granny may call anyone ‘sweetie’?
Is it OK to call your children ‘sweetie’? Should we educate / train parents to drop these (and other similar) terms of endearment from their interactions with their children?
“I was abused as a kid – my daddy called me ‘honey'”
Is it to be acceptable for women to use these and similar terms; but not men?
As for hugs, I heard it said on radio yesterday that some feminists see hugs as a act of male power over women – I guess because said-women must ‘accept’ the hug – has no say; cannot decline.
Refer to http://changingminds.org/techniques/body/hugging.htm. The first site up when I searched the words ‘hug’, ‘male’ and ‘power’
See these three factors – music to a feminist’s ear. Men are possessive; the hug is an act of possession. Men are protective – sounds good in theory, but ever so archaic, misogynistic and patriarchal. Men are dominating; the hug invades women’s personal space; Note the wording – the dominator and the victim.
The same website states “Some people, often women, use affectionate hugs quite frequently”.
Ah yes. women + hug = affection. Men + hug = power, possession, control, domination, etc etc.
So we should expunge terms of endearment (unless of course, they are used by women).
And we should expunge the male-hug (already expunged when used in public roles involving children).
F(&*^*) the world. I want to get off.
Na, you know how they have organic-waste collections and inorganic-waste collections, we just need a women-waste collection, where you tie them up and leave them on the side of the road and a truck comes along and collects them – problem solved.
I asked some female teachers at school what they thought about the matter. While we had to admit that we do not know all that occurred and maybe there was some justification, all of the female teachers thought the matter was political correctness gone mad except for one teacher. This one teacher thought that maybe Roger was using his position unwisely but this teacher also said that any reasonable person can easily get rid of such unwanted attention. Oh well we live and learn, can I in my retirement avoid accusations of this type?
More to the point – can you ever defend yourself against false allegations from some aggrieved woman? Can you prove you didn’t call her ‘sweetie’ or ‘honey’? And remember that time you hugged her ….
I believe this will make employer think twice about employing women.
Following thia I have disciplined a member of staff that often calls another employee “Honey” and “Sweetie” , often in front of other staff members and patients he is treating , and regularly hugs her both in the office and lunch room . I guess I will have to fire one of them , despite the fact they are a married couple in their late forties , I wouldn’t want to upset correct feminist attitudes .
Some people might think this is a one-way street.
I’ve been in a variety of workplaces and have seen opposing situations, although I wouldn’t hold my breath for a trial by media of a woman in similar circumstances.
In one particular situation a women superior who wasn’t married or attached would demand and expected to be given sex by her male subordinates, regardless of whether they were married, single or otherwise attached.
She didn’t handle rejection, (it was a loss of control) and would make life miserable for anyone who didn’t play her game.
This didn’t happen on a daily basis, it was a planned targeted process, that occurred over months.
I am not drawing a comparison, suggesting this and Sutton’s situation bear any similarity, merely pointing out that the opposite does happen and from what I’ve witnessed far more often than is projected by these media storms we see around any unwanted familiarity in mixed sex workplaces.
Women operate in a different manner, express different expectations and make their demands in a different manner to that of men, which is not regarded equally as sexual harassment.
It’s an unbalanced equation that invites complaints from women against men and is stacked in favour on women.
What we are seeing here is not news, it is media aggression, with a very destructive outcome for all concerned, and shows how individual journalists can portray their personal politics, rather than report the news.
What should be under scrutiny here is media behaviour.
The irony of course is that this is the legacy of the Clark led Labour feminist ministry, and whilst dominating the news is starving Labour of every ounce of oxygen they might have had for their leadership lotto draw.
Who is “Labour”?
A redundant feminist political party relegated to the
analannals of yesteryear.
I am not sure if they still have enough members for registration or not.
We’ll find out next election.
I was in Oz recently. All the Oz women (over 50, at least) refer to all us blokes as ‘dah’l’ or ‘dah’lin’. (gotta say it with a fair-dinkum ozzie accent).
Should I be offended at being sexually harassed so blatantly and repeatedly? Crap. I didn’t feel harassed or sexually hit on. I suppose the femi answer to that is, ‘well men enjoy that kind of thing’. Of course, if Sutton were to say that about calling women ‘sweetie’ or ‘honey’, he’d be shot down, as being further sexist! It I were to use the terms ‘sweetie’ or ‘honey’, I’d intend being condescending – not a sexual miscreant.
Perhaps feminism could kindly publish us stupid men a dictionary of terms and words we may no longer use; and/or a lexicon of when we might and might not use them?
As various spokespeople employed in NZ government agencies are given platforms by media to complain that Roger Sutton hasn’t been kicked hard enough for his breaches of ethical behaviour standards invented by feminists, that same government gives a red-carpet, highly respectful welcome including 21-gun salute to the leader of another government for whom ethical behaviour involves killing or imprisoning for decades anyone who expresses views it doesn’t like or who follows any religion that it doesn’t approve of, among other utterly despotic practices. How can we take NZ’s PC nonsense seriously?
Sexism is everywhere:
Whoa, is that the boss’s missus?
Wasn’t that what Sutton got accused of?
Is she blonde or what?
Yeap. That idea works for me. Now, what’s this sexism stuff then?
The rest of the article has Sutton right up there with roast busters, and escaped prisoners.
… and the State Services Commissioner should resign too, says Hamish Rutherford.
I would never hold a straight man’s hand (in affection).
I would never tell a straight man I love him.
I would never hug a straight man (in love).
I would never make love to a straight man.
I would never marry a straight man.
Guess I can never do these things to any woman either then.
Guess I can never find love, make a home together, share a future, procreate or grow old together.
Good luck to the future of the human race.
More calls for Rennie to quit:
Seems to me that Sutton’s resignation denied the usual feeders their full meal. The crescendo of vindication fell flat this time because he… well, he wasn’t there any more. Not really satisfying. So attention has now turned to the nearest visible male, in this case Rennie. I hope all this trouble, time, expense, energy, and resignation have been worth it, and that Christchurch has benefited from the process.
Poor old Roger. They will destroy him. They will destroy everyone who said anything nice about him. They will make it impossible for any man accused to speak publicly in his own defence ever again.
Just watch it all unfold.
Jesus Christ. Are you lot serious? Bitter much? Did a woman reject you once and this is why you’re so completely stupid and sexist? Or do you still think it’s the 1800s? I hope I never meet you in real life. You’re obviously sad, bitter and pathetic.
Xx(#21): It would be nice to hear from you some reasoning or even opinion on the topic at hand rather than simply regaling us with a tirade of insults and sarcasm. Is that your usual form of violence towards anyone who dares to express a viewpoint you don’t agree with? Actually, on second thoughts, it probably wouldn’t be nice to hear anything more from you at all.
But much happier after hearing from you, eh Xx?
What would we do without the occasional little ray of sunshine to lighten the gloom.
Thank you for all the abusive adjectives, Xx.
Hope I never meet you in real life either. Your abusive adjectives are possibly good examples of non-violent behaviour (abuse) that could give rise to a prison sentence of up to 14 years in England, under proposed ‘non violent behaviour’ legislation currently being proposed in England.
Fortunately we are not in a intimate relationship, or I feel I’d have little choice but to escape the abusive relationship and seek both a protection order and your prosecution.
I suppose as a troll (in the Internet sense of the word), you feel entitled to sling personal abuse under the anonymity the Internet generously provides you? (you did realise it is possible to trace pretty well every thing said on forums such as this)?
Certainly not. However feminists seem to be pining mightily for the days of fainting couches and smelling salts.
Please guys, don’t feed the troll.
Bum slap just a fun slap, ERA says:
This is interesting comparison between an out of control bunch of journos and an employment decision: