The Essay of Tania Billingsley
The Essay of Tania Billingsley is published at TV3 the source of the quote below:
This matter arose out of allegations by Billingsley against a Malaysian diplomat who fled the country under diplomatic immunity.
Regardless of the diplomatic circumstances the possibility of the alleged offender’s return was still being considered as was an application by the police for deportation.
Billingsley a self-confessed activist, weeks out from the election has chosen to use her case as a crusade for her cause. The case will likely never come to court given the trial by media that has taken place.
It is a choice this young lady may come to regret, as her choice is now the subject of legitimate debate as is her essay shown in full below.
Since my assault I feel that people have been assuming that my idea of justice is
to have Rizalman found guilty in a New Zealand court. While it is an important
part of justice being done, my main reason for wanting this is not for my own
sense of satisfaction but to keep other women safe.
I don’t want anyone to have to go through what I have gone through. And if my
idea of justice means ensuring the safety of women and others, then it cannot
stop at the prosecution of this man. Violence does not occur in a vacuum. There
are very real reasons why sexual assault is happening in our country every day.
This is because our society normalises, trivialises and in both obvious and subtle
ways condones rape. This is called rape culture.
We have seen this rape culture reflected in our own government’s response to my
assault. It only became a matter of importance that was properly addressed when
it started to inconvenience those in power. When I saw my assault being reported
in the media it was primarily men given the authority to speak on it, when, apart
from the police, it was women who were doing the incredibly hard job of
supporting me, listening to me and helping me begin to heal.
Rape culture is in the reaction and words of our Prime Minister. John Key recently
questioned David Cunliffe’s sincerity over his comments that preceded a speech
in support of Women’s Refuge. It genuinely makes me wonder if he has watched
any of his responses to what happened to me. I think if he had, he wouldn’t be so
quick to question the sincerity of others – not only this, but his reaction to Mr
Cunliffe’s speech, the ever-present, knee-jerk reaction “not all men”.
It disgusts me as someone in the midst of trying to begin recovering from my own
attack to see that he, as Prime Minister of this country and therefore responsible
for the wellbeing of its people, is yet another person who cannot seem to
understand that things are so bad that survivors of sexual violence and women in
general, for their own safety are forced to view all men as threats.
And when I talk about survivors I’m talking about, at bare minimum, a quarter of
women alone in this country. Your discomfort at hearing the realities of rape
culture is not more important than the struggle of people trying to survive and
recover from the effects of rape culture. Why do we have someone with so little
understanding of the reality of oppression running this country?
Murray McCully – not only has watching and reading his response to my attack
been incredibly hurtful and frustrating, I have also felt embarrassed for him.
Watching a grown man try to talk his way out of responsibility at what is
effectively failure at his own job is a painful thing to see. I can’t believe his
incapability to admit a mistake and try to fix it rather than pointing fingers at
If he and Mr Key are so intent on pinning incompetence on a ministry official and
solving this incompetence with job loss, then I’ll expect to see their resignations
handed in any day. Genuinely I would like Mr McCully to take responsibility and
resign, not just responsibility at the incompetent handling of the diplomatic
immunity aspect, in which it was clear to me that my experience or wishes were
not even a factor to consider, but also responsibility for his insensitive and
embarrassing public reaction, which for me was so painful to hear.
As for the issue of diplomatic immunity, I guess I have a lot to say, but it can
mainly be summed up in the question: How can we have a structure in place that
is continually allowing people to get away with crime? Is it enough to say “that’s
just how it is; there’s nothing we can do?” That was the message that was
conveyed to me as soon as it was found out he had diplomatic immunity and then
was the initial response of Mr Key when this information was made public.
I would like to put a personal challenge to the Government. The fact that sexual
violence is still so rampant in our society is proof in itself that you are not doing
enough. Support the services and change the culture. Ask yourself what kind of
message you are sending your country about how seriously you take sexual
violence when you employ people with histories of sexual assault such as Alan
I know when being challenged like this, it is easy to do a McCully and try to place
blame and responsibility on everyone but yourself. But sexual violence is present
in all parts of our society and therefore needs to be addressed by all parts of the
Government. There have been recent actions towards addressing this but it is not
Only a few days ago Christchurch’s only rape crisis centre was forced to close
down due to lack of funding. This in a city where sexual assault has risen 40
percent since the 2010 earthquake. These services need sustainable, ongoing
support. I experienced personally the everyday outcomes of lack of funding when
finding out that the waiting list for counselling through the service helping me is
two to three months. These services are doing their absolute best to support
survivors with the funding they have but clearly it isn’t enough.
All sorts of people in our country are victims of sexual assault – not only women
but men, people of other marginalised gender identities, children, queer people,
people in our varied ethnic and cultural communities, people with disability. Not
only do we need more funding in general around ending violence, we also need to
acknowledge and support the need for specialist services for all survivors in all
different communities. In what I have been speaking about I do not want to
dismiss these people’s experiences, but I can only speak from my own.
I want an accountability that is not just about legal prosecution. This is effectively
putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and statistically in 99 percent of
these cases it is an ambulance that won’t even work. I want an accountability that
is going to stop sexual violence in this country. I wouldn’t wish my experience or
that of other survivors on anybody and if the Government really wants justice to
be done then they need to properly address rape culture in our society and work
on stopping sexual violence, not just reacting to it.
I shouldn’t feel that I need to put my face on television just to get this message
across. People have been saying these things for a long time and yet so much is
still not being addressed because the Government is the one distributing the
funding and they seem to not take seriously the magnitude of the issue of sexual
and domestic violence in our country. This is fairly obvious when they are
committed to putting $80 million towards creating new banknotes just to “stay
ahead”, yet years of work and pressure from those trying to fix these problems
has resulted in only around 10 million eventually being granted. It may sound like
a lot but considering the enormity of the issues and the already lacking funding I
don’t think it is anywhere near enough.
What has happened to me, while horrible, is yet another sexual assault in a
seemingly never-ending stream. How can I look at what has happened to me
without looking at the violence endured by so many people I know? Not one of
these people in my life has ever had any kind of legal justice. They, along with 99
percent of sexual assault survivors, must find their own ways to get closure and to
keep going. I think it’s important to acknowledge the bravery and strength of any
person who has experienced something like this, whether they have managed to
mostly heal and carry on, or whether they are struggling. Any kind of survival
post-assault is courageous.
I would also like to take this space to let Rizalman’s family know that I am thinking
of them and that I hope they are being supported. I can’t even begin to imagine
how hard the last couple of months must have been for them as well.
Barry Soper writes about Hone Harawiri’s apology.
At this link below you will find Government stats for those who want to see the data and not rely on this woman’s claims
Like Labour’s campaign quote “1% of convictions of total sexual offences” based on the 90% of unreported sexual crime.
They get young girls like this cranked up with the belief that New Zealand is rife with sexual crime, twist their minds, and next minute instead of dealing with their own personal circumstances they are demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister, for running a sexually deviant country.
I guess Laila told Hone to apologise.
But what this illustrates is that the Greens have a closet policy that supports Labour’s domestic violence and sexual deviance campaign.
The world will be watching to see how this one pans out.
‘Rape culture’ is a feminist invention that is not based on any good evidence. Ms Billingsley’s outburst suggests she has eagerly seized upon what may be a relatively minor incident to get herself admitted fraudulently to the ‘brave victims’ group. ‘Burglary’ includes any entry to a property without the owner’s permission. ‘Assault with intent to rape’ could mean as little as taking a woman’s hand and asking if she might participate in sex.
If indeed the Malaysian diplomat’s actions were much more violent and sinister than this, then Ms Billingsley deserves our sympathy and support. But that has nothing to do with a ‘rape culture’, just one individual’s wrongdoing (and that person wasn’t even from our culture). Also, it doesn’t mean that her desire for personal revenge at his wrongdoing should outweigh longstanding international conventions.
But in a witch hunt, anyone including community leaders will be burned at the stake along with any lowly accused they might try to treat with any semblance of justice, due process or rationality.
Is this girl seriously a victim or just another activist imported by the Labour caucus?
I’d like to hear both versions of what happened! It could be anything from a clumsy peck on the cheek to a full on attack, we just don’t know. I certainly don’t condone the guy if he broke through her window in the middle of the night and tried to rape her but I can’t help feeling there is more to this that we are being told, especially now that she has told us what some of her beliefs are.
When you look at how much political rubbish this girl has bought into, who’s to say, she didn’t feel justified in setting up a political situation …
Interesting another point to consider is what happens to the many cases where malicious complaints are made to cyf or the police and are acted upon. The people subject to these malicious complaints are surely entitled to as much help as the young lady is getting. If the young lady gets her way and the guy is convicted then surely the ones who are falsely accused are entitled to as much help as she is getting. Do the falsely accused get any help? I know that answer; do you?
I don’t disagree with you Daniel. You’re just citing the oft-quoted bullshit.
But let’s think about this.
New statistics show sexual assault convictions have risen by 27% over five years.
A total of 2223 people were convicted of charges relating to sexual offending last year, up from 1748 in 2007.
mmm. So if there were just 2,223 people convicted of sexual offences (during circa 2012), and this is 1$ of all offences, then there is about 220,000 sexual offences in NZ every year. Note this is people convicted, so no doubt some of them have been convicted of multiple offences. Impossible to say; so I am simply going to assume 250,000 offences per year.
Over 20 years, this is 5,000,000 sex offences committed in NZ. 5 million!!!!!
Given there are only about 2 1/4 million women – probably 3 million when you allow for births and deaths opver the twenty year period, then we’re saying they’re being sexually assaulted 2 times each over the 20 year period – or 8 or more times over their lifetime – each!!!
Think of it this way: 250,000 sexual offences in one year, every year, means every woman and girl is being assaulted 10 times each in their lietime.
How do I determine this? Well imagine only 18yo’s were assaulted. In 2012, there were a little over 25,000 18yo’s, so they would have suffered 10 assaults each.
The following year, there is a different ‘batch’ of 18yo’s – and they then share the 250,000 assaults – 10 times each.
In year 3, the same thing. New batch of 18yo’s. 10 assaults each.
Now, assuming the figures are correct, and every woman is sexually assaulted 8 to 10 times over their lifetime, it stands to reason that every man is, on average, committing 8 to 10 of these assaults.
See where this is headed?
We know some men – the beast of Blenheim, for example has committed God-knows how many crimes; but he is an exception.
So pack your bags, guys. You’re gonna be hunted down one day …
Daniel is probably wondering what you are talking about.
I should have been clearer in what I was talking about – I certainly wasn’t endorsing Labour’s political statement as fact.
Yeah, I should’ve said ‘DownUnder said’ ….
My point is not that 1% is fact. My point is that this myth, when extrapolated out over time, is simply ludicrous. The femi’s don’t stop to think about that.
Or maybe they do, and intend to capture all men through all time as having committed numerous sexual assaults on women everywhere.
Maybe its part of the myth perpetrated to women everywhere to confirm whether they realise it or not, they’re all victims, and with a little ‘help’, they too can identify the offenders (i.e. fathers, brothers etc).
Paula Penfold backs rape culture
A sceptic might say, that by going public against someone who can’t or won’t answer back, adds ‘proof’ to your claims. Embeds the authenticity of your ‘experiences’ into the minds of the general public.
In this particular case, I’m going to assume the events actually occurred. What I can’t work out, is this woman seems to have a ‘haha – got you’ attitude. That’s not to say the who set of events was a setup. But she seems strangely too ready to take down anyone that is in any way tainted by the events, from John Key down. Everything everyone has or hasn’t done is ‘proof’ of the prevailing attitudes towards sexual abuse and sexual discrimination of women.
My personal response is – gawd – I pity any man that dates this woman. He’d better cover his arse big-time, coz she’ll think nothing about taking him down if she is ever scorned or spurned.
What’s that other thing on the go at the mo about sexual consent (you prove you are not guilty of sexual assault – you prove she consented). This is a glaring example where you would want to cover yourself …
There are always 2 sides to a story. The court case will bring both sides. So why the hurry to accuse the government that represents the people of NZ that we condone a culture of rape? Aren’t rapists dealt with and imprisoned when proved beyond any reasonable doubt in court? I find her allegations baseless and politically motivated.
I wouldn’t even say political. She’s anti both Cunliffe and Key. But it’s motivated by something. I suggest conversion to feminism and women’s refuge as poster child. Maybe she’s been paid off?
Not the words of simply a victim of sexual assault; no, these are the words of someone either with an agenda to start with, or who has been coached since the event ….
In simple terms, why would someone reporting sexual assault to the police, go off to the women’s refuge when the alleged offender has left the country; and we have ACC funded counselling or victims of sexual assault?
Of course, it might be that our NZ Police, bought out by the femi-nazi, are referring all complainant on to the women’s refuge, even though clearly this woman did not need ‘refuge’ from domestic violence.
OMG!(#17): I haven’t seen anything to suggest Ms Billingsley went to Women’s Refuge (though I may have missed something) She was talking about Rape Crisis having insufficient funding.
No you’re right Max. However clearly she can’t be on a waiting list at Christchurch’s only Rape Crisis Centre that’s closed; so I guess the “service helping me” is not that one. There’s not an awful lot of choices left, and we know the police refer so many cases on to Women’s Refuge, so I guess I’ve made an assumption.
Interesting assumption OMG – has Rape Crisis shut down due to lack of referrals and Women’s refuge picked up the cudgel to morph into a one stop shop?
If all 3900 sexually related crime victims (as per Colin’s figures above) went to rape crisis (which they wouldn’t)divide that up by nationwide centres across the country then numbers of clients to keep a counsellor in business and you could see some serious cost overruns there.
Surely it would be better to fund specialised counsellor’s in amongst other counselling services.
If that were the case it would show just how this girl has been politically used and abused. Someone has got to be getting the ACC funding.
Just shows how objectivity from a journalist like Penfold goes out the window when she starts promoting the cause of a ‘victim’ rather than doing the research and reporting the story.
I think they call it yellow journalism.
Down Under, the problem with your assumption is that you assume only the 3,919 reported offences went to Rape Crisis Centres. ….
If that was all, even then your conclusion would indeed make interesting reding.
This is where the fun begins.
In order to justify their existence, you have to pump up the figs. So we start to get the urban myths – e.g. that only 1% of offences result in a conviction – 2,030 convictions in 2013, according to official statistics. Therefore there is over 200,000 offences committed each year; That’ll justify their existence alone.
– e.g. that only 13% of offences reported to police result in a conviction, ergo they have some 15,600 offences reported to them. Note that out of that, apparently only 3,919 resulted in charges – again according to official statistics, and only about half of those (2,030) resulted in a conviction.
– and of course, the grand-daddy statistic, that only 9% of offences are reported to police in the first place. In other words thee are 173,500 sexual offences committed in New Zealand every year.
All of the above is simple maths based on freely available published ‘statistics’. I put the word ‘statistics’ in italics, because we have to assume the underlying studies and record keeping are sound enough. Or perpetuate the urban myths.
A similar exercise can be undertaken with Domestic Violence – and assuming there is not intersect of the stats, suffice to say, The NZ Family Violence Clearing House recently stated the Police dealt with around 92,000 reports of domestic violence over the last year. If I recall correctly, convictions for DV was around 36,000? If most DV is similarly not reported to the Police,
The same crowd freely publish that “Most family violence is not reported to agencies. NZ Police estimate they see only 18% of all violence within homes“. Ergo there is something like 511,111 acts of family domestic violence each year in good old NZ. Again, simple maths.
At that point, you can talk about work-loads.
With a bit of rounding, 175,000 sexual assaults each year; 500,000 domestic violence assaults each year (note I intentionally exclude the word ‘physical’)
Share all of those around Rape Crisis and Women’s Refuge, add to that all the ACC counsellors, free-lance advocates and counsellors, Family Court counsellors, etc etc and you have a MASSIVE self-perpetuating industry. They have to justify MASSIVE fundraising and Government funding and subsidy, to PAY all those women employed in the industry.
And is it any surprise that the stats have to be pumped up? It’s actual in their interest to overstate the realities.
I have already extrapolated the assumed sexual assault cases over a generation. If you do the same for domestic violence, 500,000 a year = 10,000,000 assaults over 20 years. That’s around 20 assaults for ever woman and girl in NZ, in their lifetime.
Add that to the 8 to 10 sexual assaults they apparently suffer, and OMG! you’re f%^^&*($@#!
Of course, the more you expand the definition of domestic violence to include every perceived injustice (he disagreed with me – I feel psychologically abuse!) the wider the net falls, all of which feeds into the self-interest-and-perpetuating industry. If we could just include the word ‘no’, when uttered from a man towards a woman, well, you get the picture.
Rape culture is turning into a political football.
Both John Key and Murray McCully declined to be interviewed on Billingsley’s statements however social development minister Paula Bennett did choose to comment, with TVNZ reporting
Paula Bennett is wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
No regrets about speaking out.
This bit from Billingsley’s lawyer really gets me:
This woman accuses the prime minister of talking up rape culture then lauds the leader of the opposition party for apologising for being a man, and there is no political motivation here – yeah right – must be a Family Court lawyer.
What makes me uncomfortable about the situation is this lawyer advocating some form of trial by media around an alleged sexual violence case rather than the usuall processes dealing with the situation – no doubt his law society is feeling uncortable about his position as well.
The issue is supposedly about the behavior of Foreign Affairs but has turned into a me-me about Billingsley and the left’s election campaign on the shame of New Zealand men.
Disturbed feelings are best dealt with by a mental health professional if she truly wants to combat them.
Judith Collins is on Q & A as I type. She just stated
(I think I got her exact words right)
So of the above 511,111 offences each year, Judith is saying that 276,000 offences are against a small sliver of women. If we assume the other 235,111 offences are against 235,111 different women, then 13,308 women (6% of victims) are suffering more than 20 offences each – one every 2 and a half week!!!!
This is straight maths. This is what the Police, Judith Collins, and other ‘experts’ are saying.
This is simply incredulous.
OMG! We should throw billions at the problem – and remove all male offenders from society!!!!!!
#27. I watched about the first 30 seconds and then turned it off in disgust.
i think we need to give them mens stories in numbers to at least give media the benefit of the doubt that they are not part of the corrupt Labour, National, Green ACT propaganda against men. Try and back it up with statistics. If the statistics are also corrupted then we must do our own studies to show people the truth.
The media and government are not that stupid that they don’t realise that asking ‘stakeholders’ (ie. those with a vested interest in the outcome) like Womens Refuge, Waves, lawyers, Judges, police, counsellors, psychologists and all those paid by government and involved in the ‘domestic violence’ industry their opinion on dv is illogical.
The only surveys that have any weight are those that only ask an even number of mothers, fathers and children of about their experiences of Femily Court Judges and Police.
golfa i had a different reaction. I watched it twice. Some bits a third time.
I have lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
These people purport to be discussing domestic violence but everything (almost) is about women victims and men perpetrators even after they start from a premise of 14 female and 7 male deaths per year. Here is my submission:
“The reasons that I found this programme breached the standards:
The first part of this programme dealt with domestic violence. The introduction gave some average statistics of 14 women and 7 men being killed per year. There after the programme focused almost exclusively on women as victims and men as perpetrators of domestic violence.
There was one statement by Deborah Mahuta-Coyle that recognised women might be perpetrators, although even that statement did not recognise men as victims.
“…husbands or wives can clench their fists and hit their child or their wife with their might … hitting their wives…”
Standard Four requires balance when discussing a controversial issue. The programme gave statistics that suggest a 2:1 ratio for killing women/men. Killing is the tip of the iceberg. At lower levels there are statistics that show that women and men commit and are victims of domestic violence with roughly equal frequency. The standard of balance obligates TVOne to show both women and men as perpetrators and victims of domestic violence.
Previously TVNZ have claimed that programmes have not discussed the gendered nature of these issues. In this programme the issue was clearly discussed in a gendered manner, there were multiple references to men as perpetrators and women as victims and as I pointed out only Mahuta-Coyle’s sole reference to women as perpetrators (aside from the initial statistic).
Some of those references were:
’14 women 7 men and 8 children’
‘man versus woman assault’
‘how well labour is doing with women’
‘alarms on women, caging women the men who are beating them up’
‘keep these men away’
‘there is a man in front of them who is about to beat them again’
‘judges they are largely men do they understand domestic violence’
‘34% of paheka committing this, white middle class men’
‘a lot of women are … men attempt to strangle them’
‘more money to women’s refuge’
‘its (women’s refuge) the … there is a vast number of women who go to womens refuge’
‘when women don’t have faith in the justice system they go to women’s refuge’
‘why did you freeze the funding for women’s refuge’
‘what message has MFaT sent to young men (as perpetrators) … to New Zealand men in this country’
‘cases like roast busters’
‘really important for women’
‘many of the women we are talking about’
‘alarms for women’
‘that man is going to end up being arrested’
‘male assaults female is the norm’
‘roast busters, rape culture’
‘funds for women’s refuge’
‘husbands or wives can clench their fists and hit their child or their wife with their might’
‘hitting their wives … they have seen their mothers go through their aunties go through …’
Standard Seven is breached in portraying men as almost exclusively perpetrating these crimes. This is denigratory to men. This is discriminatory against men.
It would be non-discriminatory and non-denigratory if women and men were both portrayed as perpetrators and victims of these crimes.
As it is the overwhelming bias of the host, reporter, interviewee and panelists resulted in a one-sided broadcast that failed to meet the standards of balance and was discriminatory and denigratory to men.”
I encourage others to make complaints whenever these ‘controversial’ issues are dealt with by our television media in an unbalanced manner.
I think we all need to listen very carefully to Tania, something is not right at all.
According to a NZ herald article, the diplomat was charged with buglary and assualt with intent to rape. He was reported to have ” followed her home from the bus, broken into her house, and undreseed himeself before she fought him off. He then waited outside for the police to arrive”
Do Diplomats take the bus ?
Is it just bad luck coincidence that a diplomat attemps to rape a Green Feminist Activist.
is it normal for a rapist to wait outside after a failed rape attempt for the police to arrive?
Will his story be that he was invited to her home, and was induced to disrobe before the lady went crazy and cried rape.
Will this be another case of female accuses male without any evidence but the media and public opinion finds him guilty.
We have only heard one side of this story and yet there is already a public frenzy in her support.
We should all be watching the outcome very very carefully.
You omitted in your reference what was just about her first quote – that 54% of all offences are committed against 6 % of victims. See my previous discourse that shows, based on public statements, the myth that there are 511,111 acts of domestic violence each year.
The first premise of misrepresenting both men as perpetrators and women is victims is the gross exaggeration of statistics. By seriously overstating the problem (Judith Collins did not re-state in this programme all the stats in my maths), by perpetuating these stats in various media creates a perception of a massive problem. By repeatedly stating men as perpetrators, perpetuates the myths that there is a huge volume of violence committed, and overwhelmingly committed by men, when the reality is that only around 92,000(?) acts are investigated by police, and only around 40,000 of these are prosecuted. Actual convictions of course, are less again.
Similar maths suggests around 250,000 acts of sexual violence each year, yet only 4,000 prosecutions and only 2,000 convictions. – around 1% of all reputed offence. A myth perpetuated based on no proven evidence.
WayneBurrows (#32): The claim that 14 women and 7 men per year are killed through domestic violence is simply wrong. The Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) provides figures that make it clear 12.75 women per year and 9.5 men per year die through domestic violence. That’s a 4:3 female:male ratio of domestic violence homicides, even accepting the FVDRC’s figures (which I wouldn’t trust because its report, like most others, is deeply biased to emphasize female victimization and to play down male victimization). The 4:3 ratio refers to domestic violence homicides, not intimate partner homicides; that’s about a 4:1 female:male victim ratio. Men commit the majority of domestic homicides but a lot more of the victims are men than what the commentators are claiming.
Here’s an article by Michelle A’Court where she defines rape-culture differently:
It made me cringe when watching the Its Not Ok! Adds When they added in the forcing your partner to have sex with you plug.
Clearly its not ok.
The bigot, human rights violating advertisers think it is ok to commit sex crimes in the home, if the victims are men, and they are crimes that only women can commit. Didn’t do a its not ok plug for that did they. The TV channels who played the adds, should be forced to do a 6.00pm apology. Naming and shaming themselves as CO MASS RAPISTS of men and little boys.
Rape culture. Rape epidemic. Care of Lange, Palmer, Moore, Bolger, Shipley, Clark, Key.
All of them have let it take place, knowingly, yet have done nothing to stop it.
What a test of the police officers reading this. What would you spray paint on all those blue and red posters that the good citizens are being forced to read.
Mass Rapist, with an arrow pointing to the face of the offender, if referring to adult men.
Pedo, with an arrow pointing to the face of the offender, if referring to your little boys.
Teenage father killer, with an arrow pointing to the face of the offender, self explanatory.
Don’t believe me that men get raped in their own homes, dozens and dozens of them each and every day, just in NZ.
Read these, mail them to your man hating friends. They will love it.
DJ Ward post
Guilty Until Proven Innocent Pronounced at MENZ Issues
Thu 19th June 2014 at 9:19 am
Sex in forced marriage.
DJ Ward post
Man charged with assaulting infant
Thu 19th June 2014 at 11:24 am
The female version of rape, etc etc.
“Stay-home-stay-safe” sounds like a media supplied rape kit, for women.
When it comes to Rape Culture, Michelle A’Court has been one of the loudest screaming-feminist writers – God forbid anyone get satirical about rape – probably not the smartest thing for a loud feminist voice, but she has tried.
When you look at this article or any feminist article ‘Rape Culture’ by definition is non existent, it is what suits the writer’s storyline, so in the above case it is limited to women throwing themselves in the way of the rapist.
A’Court on the same page has redined ‘road-risk’ to mean, only drunk drivers rather than all road risk, to make her satirical association.
In that respect it ceases to be satire and becomes dumb propaganda.
When you look at the comments below the article, it is clear that some readers clearly don’t understand satire and those that do, thought it was a clever article.
At the same time I expect the comments would have been heavily moderated to exclude anyone pointing out A’Court’s shortcomings.
That’s not the purpose of a main stream news site; putting up an article like this under opinion and censoring feedback and criticism.
It does point out the quality of editing at the Chch Press in publishing something like this, protecting the author from criticism and manipulating feedback – worst of all though, what they are actually prepared to pay for.
Really does point out the essence and quality of feminism and feminist media, but also how dangerous a news outlet can be in the digital age.
Same link as above to Michelle A’Court’s article
It’s the bottom line that counts and in this case that may well be right; the whale-oil comment at the end is a reference to the much loathed (by feminists) Cameron Slater discourse on the Billingsley Essay – that obviously got A’Court cranked up.
Rape Culture is no different to any other emotive political expression designed for a purpose; The War on Terror, Weapons of Mass Destruction – then they are discredited after the damage is done.
It is the same pattern of behaviour, where mainstream media print the propaganda, blog sites question its wisdom, then after the damage is done we gloss over and try to ignore the consequences.
Feminists are precious about their political emotion, believing it is not only above criticism but has the right to be protected from criticism, and if we allow that to happen to ‘Rape Culture’ we will pay in social consequences.