Isn’t this just typical NZ reporting ….
Nowhere in this “report” does it say the attacker was a girl. Oh, it says that the victim was a girl, but the gender of the attacker is conveniently omitted throughout. Sexist ? You betcha !
Pause the vid, and you get a good look at the attacker. Are we allowed to point out her apparent ethnicity, or is that racist?
Their agenda knows no bounds.
Yesterday they published an article in which ‘scientists’ had apparently concluded that the human race falls into two groups – the faithful and the promiscuous. By way of example, they gave us this:
“Everyone knows of couples that are sexually faithful, but also of men cut out to be cads rather than dads.”
And today the NZ Herald’s international news section included a story on the UK’s first FGM trial, in which a doctor accused of performing FGM was acquitted after 30 mins – and the Crown was should have criticized for bringing a frivolous case. What had the doctor done? Help a woman in the UK to give birth. The woman had undergone FGM (presumably with infibulation) as a child in Somalia. Seems that her FGM scar tissue ripped during birth and he repaired the damage.
The media cover an FGM non-event on the other side of the world just a week after Auckland boys end up hospitalized by MGM – an event that didn’t spark any serious questions from journalists.
It’s deliberately provocative.
The run in could have said. Lone girl bashed at railway station.
Those are the essentials. It’s factual and neutral.
It said; Teen bashes lone girl at railway station.
That’s drawing on sexist presumption to sell the news.
It’s not just bad editing – it’s hate journalism.
Suppressing information about female violence isn’t only practised by news media. Most everyone including police, Courts, academic researchers and the White Fibbin’ Campaigners seem reluctant to besmirch the reputation of females by acknowledging any wrongdoing by them. Look at all the ‘researchers’ on partner violence who measure only violence towards women and totally avoid even asking men to measure the extent to which they are victims.
This tragic story in the news over the last two days is interesting. Police have avoided mentioning the gender of the “person who lives at the address” or “an occupant from the address” who is helping them with their enquiries. Well maybe I will be proven wrong on this occasion but when police are coy about mentioning the gender of offenders it’s usually for female offenders while police don’t hesitate to refer to the male gender of anyone ‘helping them with their enquiries’. We’ll see how this case pans out.
Because of the extent to which female violence and homicide are suppressed at all stages it’s hard to trust that an accurate idea of the extent of female violence is provided by official records or research papers. Certainly, the last study by the government funded Family Deaths Review Committee appeared not to have counted all female-committed partner homicides and even those that were counted were subjected to spurious further analysis designed to obfuscate such violence.
And here’s yet another example, this time from the Health and Disability Commissioner. This midwife had a sexual affair with the husband of a woman whose pregnancy she was managing. As both parents are the clients of a midwife, she had sex with her client. Yet the Health and Disability Commissioner suppressed her name and let her keep practising. Whenever a male health professional breaches his code of ethics by enterning into a sexual relationship with a client, the Commissioner is almost certain to publish his name as well as deregistering him ‘to protect the public’. This midwife’s unethical behaviour was more serious than many cases in which a professional male starts a sexual relationship with a client, because she breached professional boundaries with the man thereby placing him at emotional risk, as well as seriously jeopardizing the emotional welfare of the pregnant wife to whom she then behaved dishonestly. Further, the pregnant wife became a direct competitor with the midwife for the same man, placing her at potentially extreme risk in the midwife’s hands. Don’t the public deserve to know this midwife’s name so they can be warned about her deceitfulness and dangerous stupidity in addition to her history of preying on a pregnant woman’s husband? Apparently not; instead it seems that white-knight protectiveness towards a female offender is considered more important than protection of the public.
At least the midwife’s gender was clear.
Not necessarily! men can (although I’ve never heard of one) be midwifes too!
and don’t forget that 99% of female violence against fathers and children is perpetrated by proxy. Females will normally get white knights and the government police state and New Zealand’s corrupt judges to perpetrate the worst possible violence against children and their dads by making false and frivolous ‘domestic violence’ accusations and denying children contact with the father they love.
It seems the population, including so called ‘mens rights’ psychologists and ‘advocates’ and some ‘leaders’ (5th column) of men’s rights groups seem to think it is accepatable to kidnap children due to ‘domestic violence’ or ‘mental health’ claims. That proves they are either heavily brainwashed or corrupt.
Beware of anyone who thinks anything but 50/50 care of OUR children is ok, for any reason. As most claims are proven false or malicious in order to get rid of men.
Beware of ‘mens and children’s rights advocates who think anyone can kidnap children from their parents ‘just in case’ or because ‘we have concerns’. This is a sure sign of bullshit.
Only a jury of our peers has the right to judge us, if we give them that right. ‘Judges’ are by definition supremely arrogant to the point of psychopathy. The mere existance of ‘judges’ and ‘courts’ proves that we are all slaves – there is no real justice available in judge only ‘courts’.
Rule of thumb – if someone has a title then they had to sell their soul to the devil. choose to read that figuratively or factually.
More pro-female sexism in our media is shown in other current news stories. One is the case of the couple in Christchurch who had office sex in full view of people on the street and in other buildings. If a lone man masturbated in exactly the same circumstances, perhaps while he watched pornography, you can bet he would be charged with indecent exposure or an indecent act. However, because a female was involved in this sexual activity, no journalist or reported commentator raised any question of indecency offending. Instead, there has been consideration of the possibility that the couple could sue the spectators for invading the couple’s privacy! If it had been a man masturbating, the spectators would have been referred to as ‘victims’ of his offence. Sure, it may be that the couple genuinely believed they couldn’t be seen, but if there had been no female involved in the sexual activity police would almost certainly have tested in Court whether an indecency offence had occurred. Further, nobody appears to hold this woman responsible, by having sex with a married family man, for traumatizing his wife, placing the wife at risk of unknowingly catching whatever venereal disease the woman might have, and placing his children at high risk of suffering the trauma and loss that comes from family break up. Of course, he was equally responsible for placing the welfare of his family at such risk. Lastly, although journalists will know the names of the fucking couple and there is no suppression order or particular reason to withhold their identities, no media has published their names. A man who masturbated in exactly the same circumstances could not expect the same courtesy which therefore appears to result from white-knight protectiveness towards the woman.
Contrast the way the NZ Herald handled this case with the headline “High-flyer accused of exposing himself in park”. The Herald’s narrative included
So male masturbation is ‘depraved’ but sex with someone else’s spouse or in contravention of one’s own solemn marital vows is not! Futher, the man denies the offence, there is serious doubt that the correct person has been identified and the man was given name suppression in the meantime. However, the Herald did everything it could to encourage gossip about who the man is and to provide clues about his identity short of blatantly naming him. For example, the headline encouraged public interest by referring to the accused as a “high-flyer” and the article went on to describe him as a “high-flying professional”, also giving his age and referring to a website showing the man was still employed “in the heavily-regulated industry the defendant works”. The Herald also saw fit to publicize the fact that the accused had previously been given diversion for doing an indecent act by masturbating in his car. This publicity will make it difficult for any trial to be fair concerning the specific offence with which he is currently accused, as well as encouraging the public to believe (illogically) that he must be guilty of the current offence even if he ends up being acquitted. Consider also that the basis for the previous car masturbation was not a trial or conviction. Where is the consideration that he may have parked somewhere he reasonably expected would be private, or that he was otherwise innocent of the offence but he agreed to the terms of the police diversion because he knew that even an acquittal through trial would have caused him irreparable harm. The police and the Herald have breached the spirit of the diversion agreed to with this man who could reasonably expect the diversion would not be announced to the public.
Another recent example of media favouritism towards females was the case of the Whanganui medical specialist who left her toddler in her car to die of hyperthermia. Yes, it was probably a terrible mistake on her part and all sympathy is extended to her for such unimaginable suffering. However, if it had been a father we might expect a very different media coverage. The father’s name would probably have been published and his responsibility for the tragedy would have been explored rather than immediately and completely excused. Feminist spokeswomen would probably have been approached for comment on whether men’s personality tendencies place them at risk as parents, and a platform may have been provided for feminists to use the case in arguing against a presumption of 50/50 shared care.
And finally today, another case of female favouritism involving an errant midwife, this time time by coroner Gary Evans. The midwife’s incompetent actions caused the death of both mother and baby, yet her name was suppressed and she was not stopped from practising. The NZ Newswire story on this case (31/01/2015) stated
So a female arrogantly proceeds with a well-paid service that is outside her competence, but the public don’t deserve to know her name.
Write to these organisations and challenge them every time you can.
I wrote to the Its Not OK programme in 2013 when I saw an image on a bus depicting a man with his fist up to a woman with the simple request “Do you have any images showing women being violent to men?” This resulted in about a year of duck shoving and failure by them to return calls etc. This went right up to the Minister’s office. As a result I have correspondence from the Minister with what certainly appear to be outright lies regarding the gendered nature of their programme. When they played gendered television adverts at Christmas one of which represented a man as a perpetrator and a women as a victim I phoned and reminded them how I was told none of their campaign was gendered. Eventually they will get sick of pushing this one sided gender biased message.
It helps if you also compliment them, like a post on facebook or favourite a tweet, or even write complimenting them when they show the other side no matter how small. That way they don’t think you are just complaining for the sake of complaining but you have a purpose and are acknowledging even small changes.
The misleading data is pervasive through society, government and non-governmental organisations. Some of it is ignorance. Although often those posting the data in ignorance are not willing to even enter a discussion about the data and its accuracy. Some of it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and effectively socially engineer society by painting a picture that does not represent reality. This is particularly bad as it is impossible to make any significant progress in issues like domestic violence, well especially intimate partner violence, if you do not recognise that both parties could initiate the issue and it is not necessarily the party who triggered a police call that is the primary offender. Often it will be a combination of both parties. Almost always the real issue is something that happened long before the police arrived or so was hit badly. Those initial actions even if minor in a physical sense are still violent and or abusive and can be perpetrated by either party. Some of the data is simply not available because there is so little objective research. This is particularly true when men are victims and women are perpetrators. If you look on the Ministry of Health’s website under domestic violence they openly state there are no data for men in some sections and in other sections just completely omit to discuss men – I am sure because there is simply no data.
I wrote earlier this week that I met with Iain Lees-Galloway MP for Palmerston North this week to discuss domestic violence data. He concluded the meeting saying that I had challenged him in my presentation. Little challenges like that sow seeds and create doubt that hopefully will change opinions over time. Domestic violence is a political hot potato so it is unlikely for many politicians to make a public stand in support of views radically different than the prevailing ideology. Nevertheless if we can get them to think twice when data is presented and to question that data even if privately we are making progress – Is there another side to this data? Is the data accurate? Is it actually measuring what we want it to measure?
The catalyst for the meeting with Iain Lees-Galloway was a post on his facebook page that he made supporting the White Ribbon Campaign. One other person and I criticised the post and suggested that the data showed that domestic violence was not a gendered issue. Iain said he would like to see our data as all the data he had seen indicated that it was a gendered issue. I had to offer multiple times – three I think – before he wrote back and said he would be willing to meet with me. I presented statistics from New Zealand, Fergusson et al finding that there was no statistical difference between males and females with regard to perpetration or victimisation in intimate partner violence and the Family violence clearing house data from about two years ago that was reported in Otago Daily Times showing mothers were the most frequent demographic killing children in New Zealand. There are other studies, international studies including NZ data that show similar results. I also talked with him about police data and why it is likely to be misleading (biased).
Challenge every time you hear these lies.
One further serious issue in this regard is that organisations like the Family Violence Clearinghouse that publish statistics for example the Family Violence Death Review, I fear are largely staffed by feminist influenced academics and ‘experts’. That is those charged with collecting and releasing this data already have a predetermined view that they want to publish and highlight and the data that is published therefore may not contain the whole truth – for example sometimes gender breakdowns are not included (no longer reported or unavailable). We need to find objective data and look carefully at raw data and highlight what is really happening. We also need to make rational criticisms of methodology and biases in data that is presented. People will listen but it may be a slow process.
Wayne (#11): Good on you for your efforts. This kind of work gets results. It’s important though to remain realistic and accurate in our claims. There is a gender issue in domestic violence and violence in our society generally. Fergusson’s and others’ research, much more scientifically rigorous than most studies in this area, show that male and female intimate partners commit approximately the same frequency of physically violent acts towards each other but the violence committed by males is, on average, much more serious. Men kill intimate partners 4 to 5 times as often as women do and the same gender difference applies to significant injuries. An even greater gender difference pertains for violence in society generally; much more of it is done by men but mostly towards other men. Feminist researchers and commentators encourage us all to believe that male victims of violence and especially domestic violence are of so little importance (or worth?) that they can be ignored, and that female perpetrators of violence are either so rare or so justified in their violence that they can also be ignored. Such attitudes have captured government, its departments and funding providers as well as the general population. Further, the feminists have become wedded to the ‘male power and control’ explanation for all or most violence and they have managed to convince the public of this fallacy. That fallacy then distorts everything the feminists and others see, and the feminists (whether deliberately or unconsciously) manipulate all data to fit in with that theory. Those are the problems from which a great deal of anti-male bias has resulted including that in our Family Court and other Courts. It’s important for men’s movement spokespersons to be as accurate and credible as possible and this includes being realistic in acknowledging that males commit the majority of serious violence, while demanding acknowledgement of both male victims (and in society generally males are much more often the victims) and female perpetrators.
The need for women to commit overt physical acts of violence has been negated by the corrupt child abusing paedophilic bias of almost all the Femily Court Judges and police who kidnap children on a daily basis from the dads they love under ‘presumed guilty’ unlawful statutes and the ‘judges’ licence to rule against those statutes if they wish.
This proves the whole system is corrupt if they may rule against the statutes with impunity and a total lack of accountability and in secret.
Secret courts are another proof of endemic corruption at all levels of government. The system is set up to control and enslave the population while giving the illusion of ‘justice’. There can only be some semblance of justice by a jury of our peers.
The existence of ‘judges’ proves corruption, there may be a need for a chairman but ‘judges’ presume to be god and rule like the devil.
Children have the right to 50/50 care unless a jury of parents in the community say otherwise. anything else is kidnapping, paedophilia and child abuse. if you think a child is a mere possession to be given in ‘custody’ against their will ‘just in case’ or because ‘we have concerns’ then you are part of the problem, and you should remove yourself from the mens movement as you are perpetuating and feeding a very sick system.
Harvard Says 70% 0f Domestic Violence is Committed By Women Against Men
On a similar yet different tangent, the news today reports http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/65978930/prison-showercams-breach-privacy.
On reading, this article is festooned with female-gendered emotive argument, about their breach of privacy, their degradation of human rights, how men can watch these women shower and toilet, and so on. Women are so discriminated against!!
Is this a women-only issue? Is the system so stacked against women (who after all, are maybe only 10% of the prison population)? Is there institutional discrimination, dehumanisation, degradation, going on. Is this another male patriarchal plot of superiorism and domination, the mere objectification of woman – naked women – as sex objects for perverted and power hungry men?
On no – suddenly, in small print, there down in paragraph seven is a small short sentence: “The ability to view male prisoners in the shower is similarly degrading,” the report said
Uh – ok – it affects men too. But they’re only worthy of a footnote. Apparently all the previous emotive hype in regard to the degradation of women – the lack of privacy as a women’s issue – also applies to men – but their rights and privacy and dignity are of no real concern!
Glad we’re fighting for equality women. Looks like in prison – you got it!
Ashish (#14): Not quite correct. The Harvard research showed that men and women commit violence towards each other at comparable rates but that in 70% of cases where only one party was violent this was the woman. However, other studies have shown clearly that the violence committed by men is considerably more serious on average. The 70% figure probably reflected the strong tendency by most men not to hit back a woman who assaults them, and also the fact that the women’s assaults were mostly not very serious.
Another case of careless or deliberately misleading reporting. This article was headlined “Man arrested after tourist beaten and robbed”. So the journalist wanted to ensure that the public knew the violent thug was a male but those who only saw the headline could be left to imagine that the victim might have been a poor defenseless female. We wouldn’t people to start thinking that men are are more often the victims of violence in our society, now would we?
And the gender of this ‘member of the public’ who was injured in an ‘altercation’ during a bank robbery is also withheld while the gender of the offender was repeatedly stated. One assumes a brave male tried to interrupt the robber’s nasty offending. Certainly, if it had been a female we would have been told about her brave victimization and her gender.
Although this case is not entirely a news reporting issue, it is to the extent that the journalist appeared to avoid asking or considering the possibility that this missing woman might be charged. I don’t actually believe she, or any missing person, should be charged for not being able to be found, but I recall several males who ‘lost’ themselves somewhere safe and who were then searched for, being charged with public nuisance, wasting police time, or some such. When it’s a female though, all we hear is the happiness that she has been found and that she will be medically examined (for some unknown reason). The caring and understanding we show to women is seldom seen when it comes to men.
But this one is about reporting, both by media and what information the police disclose. This may be a case of partner homicide by a female, but clearly nobody is saying. Time will tell, although don’t be surprised if nobody ever tells and this case, like others involving female violence and male victimization, remains covered up.
We haven’t heard anything further about the recent homicide in Whangamata for which ‘the other occupant’ of the house was ‘helping police with their enquiries’. Why haven’t we? When a female is killed the news always keenly follows up and ensures the public knows developments.
Instead of balanced reporting our media prefer to give a platform to man-hating feminists like this female law student whose hate speech opinion piece was published, apparently to allow her to retaliate against men because some male didn’t meet her expectations in the past.
Compare this case of a domestic homicide yesterday with the cases above in which police and media withhold the gender of likely offenders when they are female. Here, the male gender of the alleged killer and the female gender of the victim are both headlined and emphasized almost before the body has a chance to lose warmth.
Ive been wondering for a while now why you can comment in some online news stories but not others.