MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

‘Domestic violence debate dominated by women’s perspectives’

Filed under: General — WayneBurrows @ 6:13 am Thu 12th November 2015

A shameless plug …

‘Domestic violence debate dominated by women’s perspectives’

43 Responses to “‘Domestic violence debate dominated by women’s perspectives’”

  1. Dominic NZ men says:

    Wow, just wow, you really nailed it Wayne. thank you.

  2. GIJoe says:

    What a fantastic article Wayne. I am impressed that this made it to print. I’ve been thinking about this proposal from the law society allowing women the lesser charge of manslaughter in DV cases. There is just no way you can trust that the threshold of evidence corroborating DV is going to be greater than ‘he hit me!’ by the murderer accused. I hope to God there are sensible people like Wayne in our system to stop this from passing into law. I’ve spent the last year living next door to an absolutely dysfunctional couple. She would hit and abuse him all day within earshot of the neighborhood. He would get drunk as the day progressed and predictably beat her up. I am in sales and often visit people in their house. I know that if I haven’t sold her, I’ve got no chance at closing. There is an ongoing myth that men hold and exercise power. This is sometimes the case but tends to be the exception not the rule. Women have always had power and the state has just fortified this. They don’t need this law to further advance state-backed sexism. Institutional sexism NEVER favors men.

  3. MrFatsworth says:

    The bad behaviours of women needs to be addressed – if that doesn’t happen, all we are really doing is feeding the so called ‘help provision industry’ the ‘troughers’

  4. JohnPotter says:

    This is a great article Wayne, congratulations. I’m surprised Stuff published it, and that they are allowing uncensored comments.

  5. voices back from the bush says:

    Great work Wayne Burrows.
    If ever your in Christchurch I’d like to buy you a beer.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    Honour, self deprecatingly and humbly jokingly called “shame”.

    Maybe also taking the piss out of the shaming tactics unashamedly being used by manipulative women who moan more than do. Good on you!

    You commented that: Fergusson has claimed that women are more frequently the perpetrators of child abuse.
    one reference of good quality: Child Maltreatment 2013 USA
    Look to page 49.
    From website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

    Some people think that it is ok to suffocate a child under a blanket, so that there are no bruises, but it is criminal to smash a child quickly to death.

    In my book a quick death is relatively more merciful, than years of emotional neglect, followed by suffocation or poisoning by tablets to death.

    The violent example allows the (child callous) among us to look down and feel good about themselves, all the while doing nothing to help.

    Child protection is not leaving children in the care of unskilled or incapable parents. It isn’t fun making such decisions, but you cannot protect a child smashed to death, afterwards!

    In theory, you can protect a neglected child afterwards, but only the cruellest sadists would see such a scheme as acceptable. A fence at the top of a cliff seems so much nicer than an ambulance and painkiller at the bottom.

    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

  7. DJ Ward says:

    Good work Wayne
    And good on Stuff for publishing.
    Domestic violence will never be fixed.
    Until women stand up.
    And take responsibility for their actions.

    The opposite of White Ribbon.

  8. Joseph says:

    A great article Wayne. Very concise and backed up with statistics. Amazing that it got published.

    There is another aspect to female to male violence, which is that the feminist movement has created a bias against men, and so the agencies of the State (eg police, social welfare, hospitals) actually oppress and discriminate against men, on behalf of women. What this means for the average man is that it is the women in domestic relationships who actually exercise overwhelming power and control, since they simply need to push the button to get the state agencies do the violence on their behalf. So a violent women does not need to do much herself at all. All she needs to do is activate the police, get her victim arrested, make false allegations, gain custody of the children, keep living in her house, get the state to substitute the financial support of the man, and take out a restraining order. It is so simple, and effective, that the mere presence and threat of this violence is enough to make women the dominant member of the partnership. Most men realise this power differential, and most cope with it the best they can. The ones who lash out, are used as raw material for media releases by the feminist movement. This kind of injustice is very common in all societies. Think of Blacks and Police in USA. Think of Castes in India. What is so very difficult for men, is to understand this deliberate and strategic oppression is coming from women who claim to love them. Both wives, partners and mothers claim to love men, but as a group they do exactly the opposite. It is rugged journey of emancipation which the 3 year old, the 15 year old and 30 year old male eventually needs to make. Unless this is done, the oppression and marginalisation of men will simply get worse.

    Joseph

  9. WayneBurrows says:

    Despite what others have said here Stuff were very good and helpful in publishing this piece. I wrote to them about the article of Rachel Stewart which I thought was one sided:

    “I am writing regarding the piece published 26/10/2015 written by Rachel Stewart entitled “New Zealand has reached the pinnacle of world number one in domestic violence”.

    In this piece Stewart paints only one side of the very complex issue of domestic violence. There is much evidence that show that women contribute significantly to domestic violence statistics as perpetrators and similarly men as victims. This perspective is ignored in Stewart’s article.

    My understanding is that under industry standards you are obligated to provide balance on all controversial issues of public importance. On this issue there is seldom seen any balance in the media.

    Can you please inform me whether you intend to publish any opinion from a more balanced perspective. If you have no one then I may be able to help you find some one or be willing to write a balanced well informed article based on publicly available data and opinion.”

    And they replied:

    “Thanks for your email and for your comments on this important and complex topic.

    Under Press Council standards, when an issue is long-running, as this one is, the press is not required to cover every single side of an issue in every story, and this particularly applies in this case as an opinion piece.

    As such, I’m comfortable with the piece as it stands.

    However, we are always interested in hearing all perspectives on any debate, and it sounds like you have quite a bit to contribute to this topic. Would you be interested in providing an opinion piece of your own, outlining your views with regards to men as victims and the contribution of women to domestic violence statistics? I’d be more than happy to take a look.”

    Janine Fenwick who I dealt with was very good and helpful. I wrote and submitted the article. Janine asked me for some references for data and people I had quoted. I found the references, they did some minor massaging – adding links for references instead of a list at the bottom – and otherwise published it pretty much as I had written it.

    PS. I am in Christchurch from time to time and would be happy to catch up with anyone whether or not you buy me a beer.

  10. Stranger says:

    I have a simple suggestion, what if simply all men from NZ who are victims of family courts refuse to work or to pay alimony? wouldn’t that bring the whole system down to the men’s knees? Why don’t we try that?

  11. WayneBurrows says:

    This comment has made speaking out extremely worthwhile:

    “This is probably the first article I’ve read on this subject that doesn’t make me feel completely alienated/”victim-blamed” (excuse the buzz phrase), so thank you.”

  12. Dominic NZ men says:

    @ Wayne, you must be having a beer yourself with the comments on your article being so supportive that’s almost unheard of and shows a rare glimpse to outsiders of just how bad the problem is ! You have certainly done well with stuff.co.nz regardless.
    Next time you are up in Auckland please contact me and I will happily shout you a beer.

    @ Stranger, its a good thought and something I tried, then they just started automatically deducting it from my bank account and threating my company if I didn’t.
    They win every time when it comes to collecting C/S.
    There are ways to minimize this but its extremely hard.

  13. Downunder says:

    That’s an impressive piece of writing Wayne.

    A lot of good work in there – great to see it published in main stream media.

  14. WayneBurrows says:

    It is interesting that Rachel Stewart’s opinion piece that I quoted at the beginning and that spurred me to write to stuff was published without comments. I do not know what Stuff’s policy is regarding comments. However I suspect there maybe some surprise with the level of support in the comments. Also in my experience commenting on posts on this topic from other perspectives one often gets abused for voicing a different opinion. The standard of debate on this article was much more respectful than that. Which is good.

  15. Downunder says:

    I think Stuff got locked into getting ‘clicks’ on articles, as a driver to attract advertising.

    That’s a doomed-to-failure policy, that can only run for so long.

    Let’s hope this is not a one-off, but a return to more sensible journalism.

  16. MurrayBacon says:

    a return to more sensible journalism

    Downunder, you are so sweet and nice. They are running profit oriented businesses, so income is the most important issue.

    In NZ, through the last 20 years, there has been a steady withering of paid investigative journalism. The public fail to appreciate it’s value to them, the extent to which it helps protect the quality and value of their lives. (Many would rather spend it in alcohol or in brothels….)

    So, the new buzword is contributor journalism, where the public provide the investigative journalism, at no cost or legal risk, to the publisher. This is what Wayne has shown up so well, through his hard work.

    I can’t see any point in harking back to the golden past (as I do too often). We just have to wake up and get on with the new style journalism.

  17. MurrayBacon says:

    Silent Victims | Bettina Arndt, the Weekend Australian
    DateSaturday, November 14, 2015
    [The link is to the 1in3 campaign website, as the source, The Weekend Australian is behind a paywall.]

    Our culture assumes domestic violence is almost invariably committed by men. But the data reveals a surprisingly high number of women are abusers.

    BETTINA ARNDT

    There was a funny discussion recently on the new ABC’s show, How Not to Behave. One of the hosts, Gretel Killeen started complaining about “manspreading” – men sitting with their legs apart. “Men sitting with their legs so wide apart you’d think they are about to give birth,” quipped Killeen.

    The male host, Matt Okine suggested men sit that way simply because it is more comfortable. “For whom?” asked Killeen. “For my balls,” responded Okine with a funny explanation involving a grape ending up in a wine making process after being squashed at the apex of two adjoining rulers.

    Man spreading has attracted attention on public transport in New York due to men’s spread legs sometimes taking up more than their allocated seat space. The city ran a campaign: “Dude, Stop the spread, please. It’s a space issue”. Fair enough. It makes sense to promote consideration for others in public spaces but as always the public discussion descended into talk about male aggression. It’s all about patriarchal men claiming their territory, sneered the feminist commentators.

    Hardly a day goes by without some new story appearing which rubbishes men. After being criticized non-stop for about half a century, it’s probably time men had a right of reply, writes UK journalist Peter Lloyd in his recent book Stand By Your Manhood. Arguing that men have spent decades as the target in a long line of public floggings, Lloyd comprehensively but with surprising good humour outlines the “dismissive, patronizing and skewed” narrative about heterosexual men that has dominated mainstream media and public policy for so long.

    “So why is it that, today, there has there never been a worse time to be a man? Rubbishing the male of the species and everything he stands for is a disturbing – and growing – 21st century phenomenon. It is the fashionable fascism of millions of women – and many, many men, too. Instead of feeling proud of our achievements, we men are forced to spend our time apologizing for them. When people chide us for not being able to multi-task or use a washing machine we join in the mocking laughter – even though we invented the damned thing in the first place,” writes Lloyd.

    Lloyd’s examples of this skewed public discussion include many that should make any rational woman squirm:

    ….

    He mentions that in Nigeria Boko Haram set fire to a school dormitory killing 59 sleeping boys – the third tragedy of its kind in just eight months. There wasn’t a peep about this yet two months later when the same terrorist organization kidnapped a group of schoolgirls the world mounted a viral campaign in minutes. “What gives? Why is boy’s life worth less – or worthless?” questions Lloyd.

    Isn’t it odd, he asks, that men’s health is not given any priority, given that men die five years earlier in a life expectancy gap that’s increased 400 per cent since 1920? Lloyd’s book includes an Australian example of the disparity in health funding. Data from our National Health and Medical Research Council shows a “spectacular gender gap” with “men’s health problems being allocated a quarter of the funding women’s research gets.” LLoyd quotes a News Ltd article showing funding specifically targeting men’s health ranks thirty-sixth in health research priorities just behind sexually transmissible infections.

    Yet where the anti-male bias reaches its zenith is in the current witch hunt over domestic violence. In their determination to promote what is a very serious social problem – some men’s violence towards their partners – the zealots controlling public debate on this issue are absolutely determined to allow no muddying of the waters. Violence by women is dismissed as irrelevant, violence against men is routinely ignored or seen as amusing.

    …….

    Anyone speaking out about the circumstances which drive men to violence is quickly reined in. Look what’s happened to Rosie Batty. Who could forget this extraordinary woman speaking with such compassion about her mentally ill husband within days of him murdering Luke, their young son. “No one loved Luke more than Greg, his father,” she said explaining Greg’s mental health had deteriorated after a long period of unemployment and homelessness.

    How disappointing to hear her speech at Malcolm Turnbull’s first major policy announcement, the launch of the government’s new $100 million Women’s Safety Package. “This is a gender issue,” she said firmly, mouthing the party line, not one word of compassion for men, nothing about the men and children who are victims of female violence.

    Open your eyes, Rosie. The epidemic of violence you are rightly so concerned about isn’t just about men. Didn’t you notice Melbourne mother Akon Guode who’s been charged with murder after driving her car with her 4 small children into a lake? Or Donna Vasylik arrested after her Sydney podiatrist husband was found with seven stab wounds. Why is it that when a woman was charged last month with murdering her partner in Broken Hill, the story sunk without a trace and domestic violence was never mentioned in the media reports?

    Around the country there are government departments struggling to cope with daily reports of child abuse, most often by their mothers. Yes, it is appalling that so many children grow up in homes terrorized by violent fathers but abuse by mothers is surely part of the story of violence in the home if we are really concerned about protection of children and breaking the cycle of violence.

    Bill Shorten’s wife Cloe recently gave a speech boasting about her husband and mother’s commitment to the eradication of violence against women. Funnily enough her talk mentioned a book – Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear – written by the woman who set up the world’s first refuge, Erin Pizzey. Clearly Ms Shorten’s speech writer isn’t up on the politics of DV.

    In fact Erin Pizzey is now world famous for her strenuous campaign arguing that domestic violence is not a gender issue. “I always knew women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men,” she wrote, describing her childhood experience with a mother who beat her with the cord from an iron. She points out that many of the women in her refuge were violent, dangerous to their children and others around them. Pizzey’s honesty has attracted constant attacks – she was forced to flee her native England with her children after protests, threats, and violence culminated in the shooting of her family dog.

    Pizzey started her own “White Ribbon Campaign” to counter “40 years of lies,” the constant male-bashing misinformation that dominates the domestic violence debate. The feminist White Ribbon Campaign which operates both here and overseas is a prime offender. “We must stop demonizing men and start healing the rift that feminism has created between men and women,” says Pizzey, arguing that the current “insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence.”

    This brave, outspoken 76-year old woman is one of a growing number of domestic violence experts and scholars struggling to set the record straight about violence in the home. There’s Murray Straus, professor of sociology from the University of New Hampshire and editor of a number of peer-reviewed sociology journals. Back in 1975 he first published research showing women were just as likely as men to report hitting a spouse. Subsequent surveys showed women often initiated the violence – it wasn’t simply self-defence. These findings have been confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence summed up in Straus’s recent paper, Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.

    It’s true that physical violence by women may cause fewer injuries on average due to differences in size and strength but it is by no means harmless. Women use weapons, from knives to household objects to neutralize their disadvantage, and men may be held back by cultural prohibitions on using force toward a woman even in self-defence. Straus’s review concludes that in the US men sustain about a third of the injuries from partner violence, including a third of the deaths from attacks by a partner (in Australia men made up a quarter of the 1645 partner deaths between 1989-2012). And proportions of non-physical abuse (e.g. emotional abuse) against men are even higher. Women are about as likely as men to kill their children and account for more than half of substantiated child maltreatment perpetrators.

    (The world’s largest domestic violence research database published in the peer-reviewed journal Partner Abuse summarised 1,700 peer-reviewed studies and found that in large population samples, 58% of intimate partner violence reported involved both the female and male partner. (http://bit.ly/1GNOjoN)

    The scholarly professor has spent much of his working life weathering attacks for publicizing these unwelcome truths about violence, regularly being booed from the stage when he tried to present his findings. On two occasions the chair of a Canadian commission into violence against women claimed publically that he was a wife-beater – after repeated requests she finally was forced to apologize to him.

    …….

    It would be nice to report more civilized debate over this issue in Australia but sadly here too lies and bullying are par for the course. Look at what happened to Dr Tanveer Ahmed. This Sydney psychiatrist has long written about taboo topics, like reverse racism or denial in the Moslem community, which got up the nose of the Fairfax audience. Two years ago he ended up losing his column over plagiarism charges.

    Ahmed had spent six years as a White Ribbon Ambassador but this all came unstuck earlier this year when he wrote an article for The Australian which pointed to the pernicious influence of radical feminists on public debate over domestic violence and suggested that the “growing social and economic disempowerment of men is increasingly the driver of family based violence.”

    Boy, did that bring them out in force. Fairfax columnist Clementine Ford condemned his dangerous message which “prioritises men’s power over women’s safety” adding that she didn’t have time for “men’s woe-betide-me feelings.” After a tirade of attacks on social media, White Ribbon asked him to step down, informing him that in order to be reinstated he would need to undergo a recommitment program. Shades of Stasiland, eh?

    There’s a fascinating twist to this whole saga. Heading up White Ribbon Australia’s Research and Policy Group is Dr Michael Flood who’s on the Technical Advisory Group for UN Partners for Prevention which has produced research papers supporting the essential points Ahmed makes about the links between men’s social disempowerment and violence towards their partners.

    Michael Flood has spent his career milking men’s violence, from his early years teaching boys in Canberra schools about date rape, through to alarmist papers suggesting pornography promotes male aggression, to his latest role as pro-feminist sociologist at the University of Wollongong. Despite his years in academia he’s happy to play fast and loose with statistics when it comes to demonizing men.

    “Boys think it’s OK to hit girls.” Back in 2008 this shocking news about teenager attitudes to violence led to headlines across the country. The source was a press release by White Ribbon Australia reporting on a publication by Michael Flood and Lara Fergus which made the extraordinary claim: “Close to one in three (31%) boys believe ‘it’s not a big deal to hit a girl'”. Politicians jumped on the bandwagon, everywhere there were calls for the re-education of these horrible, violent young men.

    Flood and his colleagues had it totally wrong. The research actually found males hitting females was seen by virtually all young people surveyed to be unacceptable. Yet it was quite ok for a girl to hit a boy – 25 per cent of young people agreed with the statement “When a girl hits a guy, it’s really not a big deal’.

    When the “error” was brought to their attention, White Ribbon finally issued a correction, sent letters to newspapers but of course none of these had the impact of the incorrect, misleading media headlines splashed right across the country.

    A simple mistake? Well, perhaps, but there’s actually been a steady stream of misleading statistics about domestic violence and it’s a full-time job trying to get them corrected. The person who has taken on that daunting task is Greg Andresen, the key researcher for the One in Three Campaign which seeks to present an accurate picture of violence in the home. The Sydney man somehow manages to challenge much of the deluge of DV misinformation while also working a day job and raising a young family.

    The campaign’s reference to “‘One in Three” refers to the proportion of family violence victims that are male. Our best data on this comes from the ABS Personal Safety Survey in 2012 which found 33 per cent of persons who had experienced violence by a current partner were male. Confusingly, there’s another “One In Three” figure constantly bandied about in DV discussions – referring to the proportion of women who have experienced violence during their lifetime. This figure actually refers to all victims of incidents of physical violence not just violence by partners and about one in two men experience similar violence – as explained in an excellent report just released by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.

    The One in Three website (oneinthree.com.au) opens with a startling image of a man with battered nose and a shocking shiner plus the slogan “It’s amazing what my wife can do with a frypan.” That certainly makes the point but the strength of this site is the solid statistical analysis – over twenty pages dissecting misleading statistics aired over Australia’s media.

    Here’s one example from ABC’s Radio National: “A recent survey in Victoria found family violence is the leading cause of death and ill health in women of child bearing age.” Andresen draws on Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) data to show the top five causes of death, disability and illness combined for Australian women aged 15-44 years are anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia. “Violence doesn’t make the list,” he concludes.

    ……

    In great detail she demonstrates how the dodgy statistics stem from misleading analysis of a VicHealth report and presents all the solid Australian data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and AIHW showing the claim is just totally absurd. Yet the ABC, presented with all the data, still concluded the claim was accurate.

    One of the major tactics used by DV campaigners is to only highlight men’s violence and leave out any statistics relating to women. “A quarter of Australian children had witnessed violence against their mother,” thundered SA Victims of Crime Commissioner Michael O’Connell in August 2010. This statistic came from a Young People and Domestic Violence study which showed almost an identical proportion of young people was aware of domestic violence against their fathers or stepfathers. Yet this barely got any mention in the media coverage.

    Whenever statistics are mentioned publicly that reveal the true picture of women’s participation in family violence, they are dismissed with the DV lobby claiming they are based upon flawed methodology or are taken out of context. But as Greg Andresen points out, “We use the best available quantitative data – ABS surveys, AIC homicide stats, police crime data, hospital injury databases – all of which show that a third of victims of family violence are male. The same data sources are cited by major domestic violence organisations but they deliberately minimise any data relating to male victims.”

    ……

    The one time the relevant national body, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare published this data was in 1996 and showed 968 male perpetrators to 1138 women. Since then FOI requests have only produced data from West Australia – namely WA Department for Child Protection figures which showed the number of mothers responsible for “substantiated maltreatment” between 2007-8 rose from 312 to 427. In the same period the number of fathers reported for child abuse dropped from 165 to 155. Easy to see why the bureaucrats would be nervous of figures like that.

    Labor premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk recently made headlines by calling for campaigns against domestic violence to include male victims. Her comment was met by a barrage of complaint from domestic violence services warning her not to recognize male victims at the expense of women.

    According to Erin Pizzey, that’s the real issue. It is all about funding. In a 2011 article for the Daily Mail she argued domestic violence had become a huge feminist industry, “This is girls-only empire building, and it is highly lucrative at that.”

    Pizzey has spent most of her life speaking out about the lies being promoted by this industry in order to protect their funding base and begging audiences not to create a DV movement hostile to men and boys. “I failed,” she concludes sadly but she hasn’t given up. Her message is clear: “The roots of domestic violence lie in our parenting. Both mothers and fathers can be violent – we need to acknowledge this. If we educate parents about the dangers of behaving violently – to each other and to their children – we will change the course of those children’s lives.”

    As Peter Lloyd so eloquently points out, domestic violence is only one of many issues where men are being demonized, where the exclusive promotion of women’s priorities leaves men with a dud deal. His book explores issues like includes paternity fraud, schools failing boys, circumcision, becoming a weekend dad, men’s sex drive, pornography and the early death rate.

    Ironic considering how often we are told that men still hold all the power. It’s about time that those male newspaper editors, politicians, bureaucrats and other powerful men started asking hard questions about the one-sided conversation that leaves so many men missing out. And maybe women who care about their brothers, sons, fathers, partners and male friends might care to join in.

  18. Downunder says:

    Don’t quite agree Murray.

    Advertisers will stop investing in clicks and look harder at what will generate sales, and where their advertising dollars are best spent.

    The threat to corporate news is increasing – with alternatives on the rise, and increasing frustration with the quality of content, and information.

    I don’t think this is harking back to the past – more heading toward full circle.

  19. Man X Norton says:

    Damn. I have spent a lot of time today posting replies to several commenters on Wayne’s Stuff article. The site stated they were awaiting moderator approval, then suddenly the comments seemed to be closed and there is no sign of any of mine. I won’t bother with Stuff again.

    That’s not to detract from your success in getting your article published Wayne, well done! There is a changing tide but the feminists will fight violently to try to stop it.

  20. Man X Norton says:

    Rachel Stewart joins other feminist commentators in claiming that NZ has the highest rate of domestic violence in the developed world. This claim is almost certainly spurious. For example, if we look at family violence homicides NZ’s rate of 0.72 per 100,000 is average when compared with that of other regions: Americas 1.4, Asia 0.6, Europe 0.8, Global 0.9. (2013 figures taken from https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/Chapter_2-2.pdf)

    It may be true that police call-outs to family incidents is relatively high and indeed appears to have been increasing, but that’s unlikely to be due to increased or even internationally high rates of actual violence. Firstly, NZ has a small population and robust infrastructure that tends to keep demographic records more reliably and accurately than many larger countries. Secondly, NZ has long had specific family violence legislation administered by the Family Court that encourages allegations with minimal standards of evidence or proof. Thirdly, the NZ police have been required to prioritize family violence and breaches of Family Court protection orders. Fourthly, NZ has mounted strong publicity campaigns denouncing family violence and encouraging reporting of it, and those campaigns were likely to reach a broader proportion of our population than would be the case in larger and more racially, educationally and economically diverse countries.

    The statistics on which Rachel Stewart and other feminists base their catastrophic claims in fact are likely to reflect a lower tolerance for domestic violence, higher reporting and recording rates and more robust management of it. But instead of celebrating this the feminists prefer to misrepresent the statistics for propaganda purposes.

    Even when it comes to family homicides (the most serious form of domestic violence), international comparisons are likely to be skewed by differences between jurisdictions. NZ police solve nearly all homicide cases thereby identifying quite accurately those due to family violence, while in larger population centres this may not be true. So even this measure is likely to overestimate the NZ problem compared with other countries. Across all developed countries including NZ, family homicide rates have been steadily decreasing over the last few decades. This is against the trend of NZ’s increasing family violence allegations and police call-outs, further evidence that those increases reflect reducing tolerance of family violence rather than increased rates.

  21. Downunder says:

    Yes, Man X Norton, similar thoughts on the domestic violence front.

    I like your thinking there.

  22. MurrayBacon says:

    Remember that police are “output driven”. Government set targets for prosecution of various offences. As a result, sometimes complaints are “redirected” into other offence types, when targets for one offence have already been met, but another category needs to be increased.

    Police Challenge Integrity of NZ DV Statistics
    Police Admit False Claims about Rugby Domestic Violence

    More Lies About Domestic Violence

    Protection Orders – The Quantitative Figures

    As well as the number of offences prosecuted, there are difficulties with the degree of offence required, to lead to a prosecution.

    Many prosecutions these days appear to be for technical offences, not for events as violent or as dangerous, as required to lead to a prosecution 20 or 40 years ago. It takes careful looking into the details of each case, to verify whether the prosecution is for a serious of trivial incident. Generally neither the public, nor news media have such detailed access to the criminal prosecution files…..

    So, extreme caution is required when making comparisons based on official statistics, especially those published by police.

    Hospitals data is generally more straightforward to interpret. Nonetheless, comparing hospital days stayed, sometimes needs to be adjusted for differences in stay times as modern treatments typically involve less time in hospital, for the same degree of violence in the incident.

    Emotional trauma is extremely difficult to monitor or measure, but it usually has more long term impact than the actual violence itself. Many situations which traumatise, may be ignored in evaluations. For example, arbitrary loss of access to your own children, is often far more traumatising than judges are willing to admit in public. This figure is large enough, to be fairly easily picked out of national suicide statistics, yet is still wholeheartedly ignored, by the unprofessionals in familycaught$. These statistics are just buried and forgotten.

    It is “funny” how the families don’t complain much? Were the men worthless?
    If so, then why do these “losses” affect the children so much?
    I cannot get my brain around these issues.

  23. DJ Ward says:

    Man X Norton.
    I agree with your comment on feminists fighting back.
    If you have invested huge effort in creating an empire.
    Having the public find out that is based on lies.
    Is a nightmare for them.
    But it will happen.
    No matter what.
    The services they provide do have a place in society.
    As equally as a Ministry for Men has a role to play.
    When they embrace the truth.
    They can move forward.
    And become for the benefit of society.
    Much stronger.

    Rather than slowly but surely.
    Destroying it.
    For personnel greed.
    As is presently the case.

  24. equality says:

    I read Wayne Burrows item this morning on STUFF. Am shocked it got posted at all.
    I am exhausted. I despaired long ago that gender equality and justice was even possible in New Zealand.
    I stopped watching TV years ago. I do not subscribe to papers, but never the less this prejudice still enters my life through community newspapers city signage, my PC desktop and in advocating for my daughters. I can’t enter Social-Warfare’s office without a tray of white-ribbons in my face, “Not-OK” posters on the wall, and mini-leaflets on every desk. So I stay home and go without.
    In my view the only way to get gender justice and equality is for the one set of laws to be applied in the exact same way to all peoples regardless of race, age or gender. This is my devout belief.
    In a country where Polices wear badges of bias on their breasts [White Ribbons], it is hopeless to dream of gender equality and justice. That the officers wear White-Ribbons does not evidence that they are any better or less violent or better parents than we are. An officer attending an incident in my home defended the woman with his own admission that he smacks his kids. That is against the law – but he was just defending the abuser because she was female. And although he goes home and will physically chastise his children, he probably wears and dispenses White-Ribbons as if he is somehow better than us.
    Two days ago I saw a new item in the Herald that women who kill a male abuser should get leniency. It’s a slippery slope, and repugnant at least because it is conditional upon gender. Quite some irony in my opinion, especially since not long ago “Provocation” was removed as mitigation for violence. This item seems to authorise women to be judge, jury and indeed a real executioner – then to receive leniency. That leniency presumably extended upon her testimony, at a time when the victim of the killing cannot testify for themselves. Well in New Zealand that’s what JUSTICE looks like.
    In my view its very ironic that women feel free to vilify their sons. There is not and never has been any male who is not born to women. Males are all conceived by, carried by, born to, and [with few exceptions], educated by and morally trained by women – all too often biological Dad is excluded without good reason. I hear all the time how “behind every successful man is a woman”, so how is it that they are not so keen to have their role in raising their not so favourite sons recognised the same way. Cherry picking!
    Our local Accident and emergency department is riddled from the entrance doors inwards with stickers and posters blaming my gender for all violence- and that does smear me undeservedly. No doubt the same folks who feel it Okay and even righteous to vilify my gender, have other groups whose rights and reputations they would protect with total aggression. Those signs and stickers are unacceptable, obscene and obnoxious. I cannot permit myself to go to the ED, even though recently I suffered substantial accident injuries. No point calling an ambulance because where would they have taken me! All I have left is the knowledge that I can be proud of myself and that I protected and raised my kids well. Also, where are the multitudes of violent males which if popular propaganda is true, must exist somewhere?
    And so more than a month after injury, I am still self-treating, because treatment which should be available to me as of right free of charge – is not free. The cost of attending is that I surrender my dignity and self respect by being in clear view of their repugnant signage for many hours, knowing that to protest will see me turfed out by security. They hold my treatment to ransom-That price is too high for me to pay.

    It amazes me that I can relate my family’s ordeal to strangers without any reference to males as victims; and yet after hearing it, typically they come back asking “don’t you care about violence towards women? Those of you, who know our story, know full well that I have cared and still care, and have cared for decades in a practical way about violence towards women. And so when ever someone comes back with that question, it only reveals their own inability to listen and think critically on the facts – they all seem too ignorant to notice that.

    Our case arose from women’s violence, against our two daughters. Daughters are automatically “women” aren’t they? Seems not in NZ! The constable who attended the most serious and dangerous incident, asked me “what are you doing to cause your wife to harm the children?” So if a woman offends, males are still at fault according to police. How can one trust police statistics on violence?
    Although police stats are offered as if they are reliable when they support the usual propaganda, I can relate an instance where the Anti-violence media [TVNZ] misrepresented the story when the data was not to their liking.
    For example: on Saturday 25 November 2012, TV-1 News did an item about family violence. It was the usual propaganda, and finished with the usual numbers for women to call. That item was in response to Statistics released by police showing an alarming upswing in family violence deaths. Who bothers to find out what the police were alarmed about? – Well I did. The data showed there was an upswing in domestic deaths, but not among females. Female deaths remained the same. Male deaths not only out numbered female deaths, but had increased alarmingly. The specifics of the Police data were not aired to the viewers. This was the NEWS after all. Most people watching will have assumed that men were killing more women. Never let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good propaganda story. I complained to TVNZ and then to the BSA. I lost both complaints. It seems handling the facts in this way are right and proper. I no longer watch TV.
    Please forgive me a little excursion to explore statistics and impressions a bit further. I have a retired surgeon friend [Never on your site] who is convinced that I am wrong about the statistics of family violence. He has worked long in Emergency departments and performing surgery. His ED experience convinces him that males are responsible for almost all violence against women; but more than that; the violence against Hospital staff. He belief is an ad-hoc personal poll of those appearing before him for treatment. He of course could not see the many who for a multitude of reasons either won’t present at A+E, or they misrepresent the violence to some other cause. I certainly discovered soon on in our ordeal that my being male made me an offender and a non-person. To blame women was to endanger both myself and the children. I have never reported myself as a victim. If you are male, then you are less likely to admit to being harmed by a woman. Even if you did, then her word [NOT YOURS] is taken as gospel.
    I can’t know about the violence towards staff, but I try to point out how stacked, his ad-hoc amateur survey might be. For instance even though I was the safe parent of injured children taking them to ED, I was never asked by hospital staff whether Family violence might be involved? It seems I was assumed the offender even then. I was told to “Man-up”¦ you can’t say that about a woman!” “Come on”¦ you’re a man!”. Then the cop blaming me anyway and I got no understanding at work either. I was isolated.
    Currently I have a personal carer, and I hear the story of her young son who seems to be regularly beaten up by girls. He never goes to hospital, but vanishes to self treat as I do. We are never polled or counted for statistics except we might show up in peer reviewed longitudinal studies – which are never used in the so called anti-violence campaigns.
    Its okay for females to acquire the victim status. I’m sure some put a value upon the “victim status” as if a badge of female passage – even if they are not. It’s a very different story for Mother’s sons.
    My most harmed daughter once approached White-Ribbon at the Feilding Market day, and she informed the White-Ribbon women that women are also violent. One might imagine that my daughter being an abused female from birth, she might have sympathetically treated. But no! Police were on hand conducting a sausage sizzle in support of white Ribbon, and this occurred about 3 metres from their BBQ. White Ribbon women turned on my daughter with a vicious tirade. They reduced her to tears publicly in front of police. She came over sobbing. I imagined onlookers might think I had hurt her, so I took her home for my protection. White Ribbon Hypocrites! Police hypocrites! Family violence is a crime only if you are some mother’s son. And White Ribbon is only interested in violence against SELECTED women- NOT ALL WOMEN.
    We had another unpleasant incident involving Air New Zealand. A gender policy was created that bars unaccompanied children from being seated beside stranger males on planes. I had to take my daughters South to Christchurch for a paediatric neurological ACC evaluation. We boarded the small plane and we all seated in close proximity. Cabin crew were insistent I move away to be seated away from my girls. My youngest became very distressed by this – it was her first flight and wanted Dad beside her. My girls were not unaccompanied – I was with them. Crew made mo inquiry into whether we were related or not. Crew were very resistant to reason until my youngest was overcome with distress. No apology was offered. Obviously Air New Zealand crew judged me without any facts at all, as being a paedophile. Of course any of the female murderers and abusers could sit beside children in flights without a murmur from crew, simply because they are female. Its noteworthy that the only hijacker in New Zealand airspace was female. My Human Rights complaint was unsuccessful.
    I take issue with calling all violence a “CRIME” – not necessarily so. Of course it can be a crime, or be made a crime, but in many cases doing so just shuts the door on all positive reconciliation outcomes. In reality we all have our high and low attributes. That is natural and normal. Growing is getting to know them, to utilise the positive and to mitigate the negative ones.
    Sure I expect to be vilified for having that opinion. After all in this free land, our opinions MUST CONFORM – or else. But I see no time in human history, no precedent, and no current example where the human animal is not prone to fighting and deceiving for whatever reason it deems fit. It seems innate, just like a cat roaming free and catching mice. So surely anyone who contends that violence can be stamped out is at best utterly deluded – but isn’t that the mantra of our so called Anti-violence lot?
    Raising boys in this culture and this way ensures a number will be so aggrieved as to lash out, fight back and thus appear to justify the corrupt violence campaign’s spurious claims.
    There is a body of evidence that we don’t have free-will, and of course, FREE-Will is a necessity for judging, blaming, and punishment. So the idea that hitting is necessarily CRIMINAL isn’t as safe as it’s assumed to be. I don’t see my kids abuser as CRIMINAL – Just like a male in her situation, she could have benefitted from mentoring, assistance, and maybe some therapy. If a CRIME was committed, then I attribute it to the anti-violence entities which intervened. They should first have done no harm. They should have investigated the facts [they did not – vide court judgement]. They should have tried assistance, support and mentoring before taking sides. They should have ensured both parent ability to parent were preserved long enough for the truth of the situation to be known. But instead they knowingly exploited the emergency for their feminist hatred of men. They did commit perjury. They had to pay some costs to me because of it. The lawyer got their cheque – we never got a cent.
    I encourage also that people consider This.
    Where do abused children go to when they turn seventeen?
    Such children can live with permanent life blighting consequences which stay past seventeen through lives to their end. Our experience is that the supposed “Anti-violence” clan’s interest in abused children stops the moment the kids turn seventeen. But Physical, social and psychological consequences do continue, and from age seventeen, the state treats such kids as lazy fat, parasitic scum if they have to line up for meagre funds or psychiatric treatment in order to stay alive. Along with this poverty and depression with low self esteem, comes a dangerous lifestyle- such as living in doss-houses, being homeless, being exploited; or mixing with others who have even more negative challenges with them. How long the state and the anti-violence lot self congratulated and undeservedly glorified themselves while exploiting these damaged kids – but at seventeen, kids don’t evaporate, nor teleport to Mars, they are still here and treated as scum by those who disrespect equality and justice. Police who once attended supposedly for their safety are now more likely to be treating them as criminal.
    The Anti-violence people congratulate each other as good clean decent righteous folks; they build empires; talk of the “tips of icebergs”; acquire power they wield corruptly; all the while enacting hatred towards [mostly] males who came from women. I put mostly in there, because some will know, my girls were not acceptable in women’s groups. Their experiences did not fit. They were welcome within the MENZ movement. The feminist treat females who do not fit, as they do men. In the eyes of the hypocritical Anti-Violence movement, the enforcers and the Government with its NGO’s like men – they don’t count.
    Its bizarre! Although John Key’s accusation about Labour being supporters of Rapists, murderers, and paedophiles is extremely offensive and dishonest as well as incompetent; with great regret, I cannot join the loud calls for him to apologise. The reason is that my call would blend in with the group who does us so much harm. They have already said it’s “Not-OK” and that identifies their approach with the biased “Not-OK” campaign, which in truth is a gender weapon along with the establishment and white-ribbon always used to vilify men. The hijacking of this outrageous issue prevents me from standing as I would want to on this. I cannot betray my principles to support “Not-OK” in its current prejudiced form.
    I have considered the gender war carried out by feminism to be a force in the world, and together with Taliban, ISIL and other oppressive fanatical groups, not a good one. I admit to wondering what will happen when Feminism tangles with the world’s other fanatics? I fear for my daughter’s, because they by appearance alone, they look [not behave] the same as fanatical females. And no, I’m not talking about women not being equal to men at all – my record is in fighting for their safety, and for them to thrive in every way. I just fear that when feminism collides with other fanatics, innocents will get hurt. I do not want my daughters anywhere near that.
    Sadly, this eruption from me ends without building my hopes, for myself, for my family, for my friends, for my community, for my nation, or for the world. It’s hopeless!!!
    Feminists can never be my equal. Being equal is up to them. They don’t realise that it’s their own policies which prevent equality. To be my equal, they must not cherry-pick the equalities they desire only. A woman who kills a male albeit provoked, must be treated the same as a male who kills a female albeit provoked.
    This incessant campaign to have separate laws and leniency prevents their equality. Even if reluctant, males are made responsible for what they think, do, and say. At times we are made responsible for what we don’t think do or say. Whatever policy is being actioned, it must apply equally regardless of gender race or age.
    I look forward to the abolition of all special exceptions based on gender.

  25. Man X Norton says:

    equality #25: Thoughtful and insightful commentary, thanks. I would suggest though that you don’t deny yourself access to health and other state services, and indeed don’t take it all too seriously in general. It’s easy to feel defeated and hopeless or to cut off your nose to spite your face, but that’s letting the terrorists win. Fight back with a smile. Usually you won’t be harmed significantly if you state your opinion in a non-threatening way. Kia kaha!

  26. voices back from the bush says:

    Very informative thoughts and facts on these posts.
    Thanks Murray Bacon for the info and links.
    I really liked how simply Joseph summarised with his comment @ 8.

  27. Downunder says:

    Another way of phrasing the comments @8 might be to say that women extract violence from others by creating victimhood.

    Notice the recent uproar in parliament when the female MPs walked out and starting trotting out their victimhood – they’ve all got a story – yeah right.

    It’s a same thing – I’ll win with sympathy from somewhere.

  28. MurrayBacon says:

    Beautifully said equality and Man X Norton.

    The post and all of the comments cover this subject really well. I see them as a challenge to action, but what?

    I guess the most important issue is in the next election to persuade men that they need to vote in self and boy children interest, rather than national interest.

    So, thanks to everyone.

  29. WayneBurrows says:

    Thanks for sharing your story equality.

    I do not know how these stories get lost in the dialogue.

  30. Equality says:

    I thank Man X Norton for caring about my health. There is a long history behind my health decision. I really cannot tolerate being around the signs of prejudice and those who post them. The most common response I get, has not come up in these comments – It goes “Its okay to go because the staff won’t be prejudiced like the signs!”, well they are. I refused to sit in the radiology waiting room exposed to the signs. So I took a chair into the adjacent corridor – what a scene resulted. That woman staffer was almost hissing with anger. How can we fight this or change anything if we just smile? Others get instant extensive media coverage if they are not treated with dignity or respect – Why on earth should we just smile?
    I get advised to “Take responsibility for my past”; and get told “you need to move on?”. But how can one move on when the consequences keep arising regularly. Even today I have been busy mopping up consequences arising from one daughter. What they have had too many hits on the head, things just keep on happening. When I am told to take responsibility or “move-on”, I know for sure I am in the company of an idiot. I have done nothing but take responsibility for myself. In my lengthy piece, I tried to convey that abused kids just don’t evaporate conveniently at age seventeen – they just get utterly ignored.
    But all the same, I know most are worse off than us. I have a lot of positives, some from the MENZ movement, most from being me.
    So why am I here at all. I’m not here to bother with my lot. My post was originally written as a private letter to Wayne Burrows because I liked his published piece. But that composition grew. I came to wonder if it did fit on the topic at all.
    I was unable to start a new topic.
    I’m not shy, so I dropped it in as a comment.
    Maybe I will be of help to others – I do hope so.

  31. DJ Ward says:

    I agree with your in the company of idiots comment ‘equality’
    I have to deal with something similar this week.
    For example I am presently being forced to deal with a group of people.
    That by experience I have lost all respect for.
    They have power and control over my future.
    They can force me to do things.
    They have threatened me with violence.
    Nothing has taken place with my consent.
    They refuse to listen to anything I say.
    My fate is in the hands of a family court judge.

    This time if I am treated badly.
    And the result is perverse.
    I will disappear.

  32. Man X Norton says:

    Equality, I admire your strong conscience on these matters. It’s a good idea to refuse to sit in waiting rooms with male-blaming sexist posters displayed. I intend to follow your example.

  33. MurrayBacon says:

    Several commenters above have described scenes of prejudice (against the dominant male culture???).

    It is amazing how people can hear what they said, when it is played back for them.

    So, maybe a camera and microphone need to be pre-organised. Certainly a good quality cellphone is a very good start.

    Lets help those dully prejudiced to move forward too!
    (Funny how the legal workers of familycaught$ don’t like other people having recordings of any sort, out of their Power and Control?)

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  34. Equality says:

    DJWard. Hi, I believe we know of each other from Paul’s News. It sounds to me that you have been through a lot. If I can be of any help then please let me know. Is my memory right, you were located in Kapiti area? If so, its possible we can catch up in person – Alan Radford.
    But do not ever let them win !!! I lose some battles but reckon I’ll win the war. You can do that too……..
    The energy for that arises from your self respect. If you have done whats right, you can rightfully be proud of yourself as I am. That is my rock, and our rocks always need to be within us. Others are not likely to be around when the attacks land, so we need our own fortress.
    My avoidance of the ED department is about self respect, and how I assess my actions as much higher and truer than theirs. I was tempted to add before that having them even near me makes me feel dirtied – but there, I just wrote it.
    Stay true to good principles and yourself DJWard

  35. Equality says:

    DjWard- Do you need a safe harbour?

  36. Deanne says:

    Sorry this comment will not be on topic.
    This is a plea for all of you who have possibly been in contact with D.J.Ward on this website.
    I am his partner of 15 years, he has a 2yr old daughter an unborn child and a 21 year old son who is now living with us after all these years.
    D.J. Ward has disappeared leaving me and his children with no explanation of why he left or where he is going and with no way to contact him except maybe through this website.
    D.J.Ward is a good man and a great father and we all need him here, home with his family who loves him very much.
    If any of you have any contact with him, please urge him to come home
    Thankyou

  37. voices back from the bush says:

    I dont know DJ personally, I like his posts and his thoughts on issues and I consider him to be wise and thoughtful and clever, I would like to meet him.

    If your heading to christchurch DJ, its a great time to be here,your welcome to borrow some camping gear and go do some river fishing and walk a few trails.
    Stealth camping is all the rage and who knows how many are doing it…
    I’m keen to give it a go this summer..dakota fire pit and a few bare essentials, get rid of some cobwebs.

    Anytime DJ ward, 027 0887 1800.

  38. Equality says:

    Deanne – What a worry. I have just returned to MENZ, and am not vulnerable any more. I have experience and suggestions which might help if DJWard got in touch. My youngest was just 2yrs old during my dark times – and if DJW’s terror is like mine, then I can understand how he gets into such despair.
    During that time, I tried to win the battles, but lost a few just the same. It would flatter me to say “I won the war”; in truth my ex shot herself down leaving my remaining battle against a CYPs application to put the kids in foster-care. I won that.
    Its obvious just how alone and isolated DJW feels. Even when we have another beside us, we never forget that we individually are the target.
    It may not be as hopeless as it appears to DJW, but to work on that he really needs to communicate – if not – all we can do is worry for him.
    I don’t know his personality, and being newly back, I’m not familiar with his older posts.
    But if he is volatile, while its a NORMAL human trait, its one which leaves us ripe for misrepresentation and harm. My experience is that officials will try to provoke. Even proper protests can be misrepresented as “unstable” and “violent” – precedents in my case. But I took shit so as to not be provoked. Not good for one’s ego, but best for the war. I wait to hear of progress.

  39. Doug says:

    Equality wrote: ‘I see no time in human history, no precedent, and no current example where the human animal is not prone to fighting and deceiving for whatever reason it deems fit. It seems innate, just like a cat roaming free and catching mice. So surely anyone who contends that violence can be stamped out is at best utterly deluded – but isn’t that the mantra of our so called Anti-violence lot?’

    There is incredible violence such as the two world wars but they are called the ‘Great Wars’ or the ‘Good Wars’ in our MSM while the smallest incident against a woman has huge media cover. We need to focus on large scale violence much more before this planet is blown up. The story below and the reader’s comments give good insight

    “Talmudism, that old desert ideology with its celebration of fire and brimstone and genocide needs to be urgently and openly addressed by concerned citizens and by the global intelligentsia alike.”
    https://platosguns.com/2015/11/14/talmudism-imperialism-terrorism/

  40. Equality says:

    To Doug;
    How does your response belong with the issues of this site? That’s a rhetorical question, so no answer is required. My passion is in helping people, families in our community get equality in justice and rights regardless of race age or gender. Others can tackle the violence of big wars.

  41. Doug says:

    I don’t disagree with you on those things but I think the large scale violence, domestic violence and fatherless children are related because we are living under a perverse ideology that is a death cult that would like to take us back to the Dark Ages. Needless wars and Western families falling apart demoralise and corrupt us

  42. Equality says:

    Doug “Back to the dark ages!”; well my belief is that we are the exact same primitive beast as was in the dark-ages and on the savannah when we were are tree dwelling creatures. I saw the depictions of torture at Madame Tussaud’s and frankly we can see worse in many places around the planet today. Material and technical innovation is not civilisation. So I say its futile and stupid to pretend that violence can be eliminated, as is the mantra of the supposed anti-violence set. If there is a first step, its for our reality to be recognised and accepted. Then maybe something workable could be done – maybe….. don’t hold your breath.
    But even my dog has a concept of fairness, so anything which is unbalanced / unfair will provoke ill feelings and reprisals in some way or other.
    I have not the slightest belief that I can stop the wars on this planet. And actually I have no more belief that I can stop the gender prejudice and persecution in New Zealand either.
    I’m here in case I can make a difference for others.
    But its a matter of maintaining self respect that I do my hopeless best.
    I attended Andrew Little’s end of conference speech. No I’m not a supporter, was just curious. On national radio this morning he volunteered he was off to a “White-Ribbon” function. For me that makes him as bad as the worst and most brutal types that ever walked the planet. But do realise, they all are equally seeking feminist favour by attending things like that and enacting gender policies. So I don’t vote for any party. I don’t vote at all. They are all tainted.
    So to sum up, I do the best I can, where I and the people that are dear to me are. I am a contrarian, an odd-ball, and quite derive comfort not being like them.

Leave a Reply

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.

Skip to toolbar