5 Comments »

1. 

   I wrote to the Minister of Health about this vaccination and that providing it only for girls was discrimination based on sex which is not allowed under New Zealand law. He, after consultation with the Ministry of Health, wrote back saying it was a justified limitation of the application of the Act – whatever that means.

   “Thank you for your further email of 13 July 2015 about the Ministry of Health’s policy of only funding vaccinations against the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) for girls and not boys and your suggestion that it is discrimination on the grounds of sex (gender) by the Government.

   Part 1A of the Human Rights Act 1993 covers discrimination by Government agencies. Section 20L(2)b provides that an act will not be a breach of section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 if it is, under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, a justified limitation on the rights to freedom from discrimination. The funding for HPV vaccinations for girls and not boys is considered to be demonstrably justified limitation, in accordance with section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, based on the purpose of the vaccination funding policy.”

   Which begs the question what is the purpose of the vaccination funding policy?

   Comment by WayneBurrows — Mon 16th November 2015 @ 8:27 am

2. 

   Aren’t there many other examples too? Maybe others can come up with some?
   But it provokes my thoughts too.
   How about those social engineering classes for example, “stranger danger”; family violence; etc etc where dangers are all from men – women are responsible, level headed and safe victims – and where boys learn to feel guilty for being male. Often classes are disguised so parents are less likely to figure out that they are politically conforming brain washing of their kids. Who would expect “TE [Transitional Education] to be such a class, but a daughter was punished in TE for pointing out women are also violent.
   While I know there are problems for girls who do mot tow the feminist line I think it must be hardest to be a boy raised in todays culture, turn seventeen and suddenly find that you are now suspect. From my standpoint as having become mum to two young ladies, I see the chaos of the boys on offer around my girls. From what I see, I think our whole community and culture is damaged by this feminist hatred of maleness. I see homelessness, an alienation from their families, mental health problems [serious ones]; drugs; suicide – these boys seem rudderless. I really could cry for them. But this is the selection my abused daughters are left to navigate. So do you see; this is circular. Any campaign which impacts negatively on either gender does necessarily come around to impact negatively on the gender which is being aggressive. Another way of putting it, how might modern boys learn how to be complete men who respect and compliment women; and given the same climate; how do girls grow up to be good ladies with respect, and have the attributes to compliment their man in a healthy relationship?
   Another example is how males are excluded from so many orgaisations which are female only. BUT we can’t have male-only clubs or organisations – why not in a land of equality? Again an anecdote from schooling my girls. There was a meeting at a school for Mums. In this context I classed myself as “mum” since all matters relating to my girls and their education did involve me. But I was not welcome because I was male. Of course I complained and got a reluctant special exemption. It was a thing about family violence/child abuse and police were there. This should have been kay for me since family violence is our story. Instead it was male blaming corrupt dishonest rubbish. But again it will affect boys directly or indirectly.
   I’m interested to see what other examples come up. I’m sure there are hundreds.

   Comment by Equality — Mon 16th November 2015 @ 10:01 am

3. 

   ha One of the most blatant forms of sexism in NZ I have come across. I will quote the article “Borman wondered why boys were excluded from the subsidy when they were equally at risk.”
   That Pharmac CEO seems to have lost all credibility – (Sarah Fitt, more like Sarah UNFITT to be a director of a government agency). Menz we really need to start boycotting agencies until change will come. You can change the world, be the change you want to see in the world. It’s time.

   Comment by J — Tue 17th November 2015 @ 6:58 pm

4. 

   There is a court case in Canada going to test this.
   http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-hpv-rule-is-more-evidence-that-boys-dont-matter

   It seems to be that in “Appropriate” sexual relations – ie vaginal then males act only as carriers and cannot contract the fatal cancer that the virus causes. Ergo this is actually discrimination against straight women, who become less protected as the population of carriers has not been vaccinated. (or lesbian girls subject to unneccessary treatment?). Only when men become “experimental” by using their throats or anuses as receptacles, and I guess they are implying this a free choice, are men exposed to fatal harm.

   So straight women and gay men should be the ones complaining.

   But they are not. Its the straight young males (in Canada) who have subsequently been ascribed the nefarious purpose of not wanting to be seen as “diseased” and so get more sex. Or perhaps one might think that they are honest in actually wanting to care about those who they have sexual contact with?

   Not sure if J is suggesting we boycott Pharmac? A better solution may be to find a boy/family who is motivated on this issue (pre sexual intercourse) and a lawyer who wants to set a precedent.

   Comment by JnF — Tue 17th November 2015 @ 11:09 pm

5. 

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/tied-to-the-ties-speaker-trevor-mallard-rules-to-keep-jacket-and-necktie-in-the-debating-chamber/WJLMYYYDN2I2I2XSUJFJCAPJXY/

   Always amazed me this subject.
   There is no person on this planet who can make a logical, rational argument that the clothes a person wears has any influence on the credibility of an argument.
   The bigotry is of course blatant.
   As a woman can also wear a suit and tie.
   Surprisingly there bodies are nearly identical in shape to men’s bodies.
   In fact women can pretend to be men.
   And men can pretend to be women.
   They support equality, then don’t support equality.
   The hypocrite sits on the high chair.
   Men have a cultural standard they are forced to comply with.
   And women have no standards.
   Just wow.

   How about every human be forced to wear a suit and tie.
   Or expected to dress tidy.
   I would wear jeans.
   My D1 dreammaker sneakers. (Well used)
   And my T shirt that says.
   Next sarcastic comment in 3….2….1

   Maybe the pretend real men should protest by wearing dresses.
   That will make heads spin, in the minds of the politically inept/correct.

   Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 1st February 2021 @ 6:04 pm

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.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ