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

‘Lorde’ just another man-hating bitch

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 8:50 am Thu 1st October 2015

For those men like us who have celebrated Lorde’s spectacular rise to fame and fortune, consider her latest music video. It shows her exchanging ‘love at first sight’ glances with a man who is already partnered, then running into his arms to be sexual with him behind the partner’s back, then at the end of the video she has him tied to a chair, kicks him into a swimming pool with inflammable liquid on it and lights the liquid to burn the man to death.

Lorde (we shall now call her Larde) has tweeted “one of my life goals has always been to one day play a hitgirl who pretends to seduce then burns alive douchey boyfriends” and she was also reported to tweet “the most important part of the video is when you see her black eye as she turns away at the window.. hope it all makes sense from that point”. This presumably refers to the man’s existing partner who appeared to confront him about his infidelity and was subsequently shown with a black eye, but the black eye is not at all obvious.

Yes you ugly piece of Lard, it all makes sense from that point. You think it’s ok for women to murder men. You think it’s ok to prey sexually on men regardless of their relationship status then to blame them for what you participated in. You think it’s ok when you become bored with men to subject them to terrifying, cruel and fatal violence and to justify this by labeling them ‘douchey’ and finding any other flimsy excuse. You think that if a man does any minor harm to a female he deserves to be murdered, but you won’t see it the same way when the genders are reversed. You think that feminist ideology has so saturated western society that everyone will simply accept your promotion of murdering men.

Well Larde isn’t far wrong about our society’s acceptance of misandry. I have yet to read any coverage that criticizes the antisocial messages in her trashy music video including its attempt to sanitize the violent murder of a male. Men are considered so worthless now that it’s not even considered antisocial for women to murder them. The NZ government is currently looking at making this legal. Having removed the partial defence of provocation to ensure men are never shown any compassion, the NZ government is now attempting the mental gymnastics of redefining ‘self-defence’ as something that makes it ok for women to murder men who are not at that time presenting any threat, as long as those women later claim they had at some earlier time been victims of the men’s violence.

Larde appears to have called herself ‘Lorde’ out of typical feminist beliefs that women are a higher being compared with men, should have the right to blame, imprison, kill or otherwise punish men at their whim, and that men should be treated as slaves who should not presume to be entitled to the same freedoms, fairness or rights as the slave-owner female class.

Many NZ feminists are demanding that Chris Brown be refused entry to NZ for a concert tour because he beat up and threatened to kill his girlfriend some years ago. Somebody might know the background to that incident but MoMA doesn’t. Other performers have also been refused entry to NZ for past violence or for lyrics promoting violence or for onstage behaviour that might provoke crowd violence (though those refused entry so far all just happen to have been black while white performers with equally violent presentations were not banned). Well, as far as we’re concerned Larde should also be held accountable for promoting homicidal violence towards men, and we are doing so here on MENZ Issues.


  1. I’m so glad you wrote this piece on menz. I have ceased watching mainstream murder. How can tv3 act righteous when the tv presenters personal lives are jokes as well. Lorde is a hypocrite with a chip on her shoulder. I will never go near her. The victim/feminist ideology is severly destroying this country. The Chris Brown incident is crazy. Especially after Rihanna made the song “Bitch better have my money, pay me up or die”. But yet Rihanna gets sympathy. Both Chris Brown and Rihanna are equally violent. I will never marry or wife up anyone in NZ. Maybe feminist should their history books and read about women committing cannibalism, killing/eating their children. Heck Russian women served in ww2 putting bullets into Nazis. What a joke, how hypocritical can you get.

    Comment by J — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 9:26 am

  2. In this case yesterday we see how our Courts respond to ‘douchey’ females who decide after a couple of years that their solemn marital vows can simply be discarded in favour of new romantic adventures. High Court judge Mark Woolford stated

    “You saw yourself as having some sort of rights over your wife. Whether your wife formed a friendship with another man is irrelevant. Nothing she did caused your actions.”

    So men have no rights in marital contracts. Men can be expected to redirect their lives, efforts, decisions and finances to honour the marital contract but can place no obligation on their wives in return. The wife’s breaching of her solemn promises of loyalty and fidelity was ‘irrelevant’ and such promises should be treated as meaningless. Instead, women’s right to behave immorally is defended by our white-knight law enforcement and justice systems.

    When the tables are turned and a woman murders an unfaithful male partner in a fit of jealous rage, we never hear judges utter such comments. Instead, the female murderer’s sense of betrayal and indignation is acknowledged and shown compassion at her sentencing, or (more usually) some retrospective allegation that the murdered man was controlling or violent is given pride of place in the considerations.

    So actually, when a man murders an unfaithful wife he is controlling, and when an unfaithful man is murdered by his wife he was controlling too. Nice.

    The article also quotes the infamous Dr Neville Robertson who was clearly enamoured with the good judge’s pronouncements on morality. As might be expected, Robertson appeared to provide the journalist with wrong NZ family deaths figures, also implying they all referred to intimate partner violence, and he completely left out any mention of the number of men killed through family violence.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 9:37 am

  3. #2 Yes the hypocrisy is astounding.

    ‘New Zealanders cannot allow men to continue believing they “have some sort of rights” over their partners.’
    ‘Whether your wife formed a friendship with another man is irrelevant’
    Can you imagine a Judge saying that to a women?
    ‘New Zealanders cannot allow (women) to continue believing they “have some sort of rights” over their partners.’
    ‘Whether your husband formed a friendship with another woman is irrelevant’
    You had no right to get pregnant without his consent.
    You had no right to tell him he was the father, when he was not.
    You had no right to teach your children that he is less of a parent than you, just because he is male.
    You had no right to exclude this person from the child’s life, just because he is male.
    Your opinion carries no more or less weight than your partner, being female does not mean that he is your slave, without the right of freedom of expression.
    You cannot order, or manipulate him to commit a crime for you.
    You cannot force him to be sterilised by threatening to leave the relationship if he does not comply with your demand.
    You cannot say to him, you must marry me, or I will leave you and I will make sure that you never get to see the kids.
    You had no right not to name him on the birth certificate.
    You had no right to go into his private communications, to see if he was cheating on you.
    You have no right to force your parenting style on him, if he believes in a different version.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 11:30 am

  4. So men have no rights in marital contracts.

    In New Zealand there is no marriage contract.

    Marriage is voluntary process which establishes a legal relationship.

    There is statute law relating to marriage and a specialist court – The Family Court.


    Comment by Downunder — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 1:59 pm

  5. #4 Downunder.

    Your correct.
    Marriage law is completely irrelevant.

    Except when it is applied to men.
    You are automatically the father if conception occurred while the marriage is valid. Even when you can prove she has had sex with the boyfriend.
    It entitles females to a widows benefit, a benefit men don’t get. John Key was lucky that it was his father that died.
    It is a qualifier for Working for Families, but the money is paid to the mother, the father not considered worthy enough to spend money on the children.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 2:56 pm

  6. DJ Ward.

    This has nothing to do with fathers – the law does not recognise fathers.

    If a conception occurs you may or may not be a parent ( a paying parent, a custodial parent, a caregiver, whatever the law decides)

    For the same reason this has nothing to do with mothers.

    These are, in the eyes of the law, archaic labels that have had no place in law, since the repeal of the Guardianship Act.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 3:44 pm

  7. These are, in the eyes of the law, archaic labels that have had no place in law, since the repeal of the Guardianship Act.

    However, although ostensibly repealed by Care of Children Act 2004, these labels still seem to correlate with many “judges” behaviour, even today.

    One father showed me a judgement, released by familycaught$ in June or so 2004, ie about 3 months after the repeal. It was still worded using the old, now illegal labels. The mother’s legal worker pointed it out and the judgement was reissued, with the references changed to the current act, but the essence of the judgement was miraculously no different. Funny, I seem to remember reading an academic commentary, about how significant the changes were between the Guardianship Act and the Care of Children Act…..

    So, I suggest not to take printed legislation too seriously, you might only damage yourself. This isn’t a wise choice to make. Seemingly you cannot ask under Official Information Act, for what legislation judges work to?


    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 4:07 pm

  8. What people are overlooking is that the scenario claimed to somehow ‘justify’ this video really did happen(more or less).

    Kelly Gissendaner was convicted of murder for recruiting her lover to kill her husband. She was executed this week in Georgia USA.

    Comment by Vman — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 4:09 pm

  9. So what that says Murray Bacon is that the law was written by a bunch and feminist bitches and there’s a bunch of ignorant wankers in the home of the lazy and incompetent, that have no idea what the fuck they are doing, but they’re getting paid so they’re happy.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 4:17 pm

  10. I will say that the media has noticed the double standards in the Lorde video, compared the Chris Brown issue.
    I did not think I would ever say this.
    Good on ya Hosking.
    3 out of 10.
    Do you think you could rate Rihanna as well.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 2nd October 2015 @ 6:47 am

  11. #9 Downunder,

    pretty much as you said.

    Why, where, how aren’t much important, what is important is how should consumers protect themselves and those they hold most dear?

    To be clear, I don’t mean “dear” as in expensive legal worker’s charges and super high Government civil servant salaries, but dear as in loved and desire to care properly for…..

    Government’s failure to measure the outcomes from their Family Court and “child support” experiments, reflect dereliction of duty and pathological not wanting to get involved, rather than supreme competence.

    Human ethics books suggest that if you don’t know what the outcome of your intervention is, then you are actually doing an Experiment.

    To Experiment on humans, without their informed consent, is unethical.
    To Experiment on humans, without monitoring for adverse outcomes and managing them properly, might be manslaughter? If not murder?

    So, there is a degree of responsibility involved in experimental legislation, which both Nabour and Lational have failed to honour.

    Being more realistic, NZ as a country did not have the stomach, the wisdom, the financial or intellectual resources, to analyse these situations before preparing legislation.

    NZ also did not have the resources to prepare legislation properly.

    NZ also barely has the resources to measure outcomes. Other than in the sense that now that it is history, to manage the ongoing social and financial costs we have no other tolerable option, but to eventually measure fully the outcomes.

    The outcomes measurement needs to include perverse costs such as births to parents who cannot care for their children, driven mothers and father’s suicides and excessive breeding of legal parasites.

    How long we take before starting, is a collective IQ test that we are failing.

    On that happy note, I need to get back to my drugs before I go off the rails….

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 2nd October 2015 @ 10:19 am

  12. Methinks she has been hanging around Taylor Swift too much, just a copy of her man torture videos, but at least puts the man out of his misery at the end. Expressing a fantasy as an artist, a cathartic release, certainly not what would be argued if it was the other way round.

    BSA complaint anyone – banned or R18 in her own homeland, might be something for the media to chew on.

    I’ve already heard its “controversial” and “pushing the boundaries of artistic expression”, yet not so long ago this was shouted down by the few defending the “Blurred Lines” so called rape culture anthem.

    Comment by JnF — Sat 3rd October 2015 @ 1:17 pm

  13. Hints of a snuff movie, except that it is openly available, for artistic people to watch and for idiots to watch.

    Except that snuff movies aren’t so easily available?
    How do you know that the man in Lorde’s movie didn’t consent?

    Actually, I am more worried about the effects of murders in violent movies and TV, on policemen who watch them. I am also a bit concerned about their effects on adolescent young men and women, but usually they are more mature and lower risk than police…..

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 4th October 2015 @ 11:53 am

  14. Murray “Actually, I am more worried about the effects of murders in violent movies and TV, on policemen who watch them. I am also a bit concerned about their effects on adolescent young men and women, but usually they are more mature and lower risk than police”¦..”
    Google “Jack Thompson”, was the Anita Sakesian of violence in tv in the 90’s – but like Anita, it may make sence to think of the effects on others, “but i’m sure it doesn’t affect me cause i’m older/wiser etc”. Both crime stats and individual studies show no corrolation, and studues on unstable personalities show no cause & effect (though method or informative for those planning is debatable). Extreme bounds analysis still comming.

    BTW – Wasn’t it good to see Fran O’sullivan on Q+A this morning dicuss Chris Brown and state “lets not kid ourselves that domestic violence is just a man hitting a woman…etc…women perps too.” Then silence from male panelists.

    Comment by JnF — Sun 4th October 2015 @ 7:24 pm

  15. Dear JnF, I am uncomfortable about the effects of extreme violence TV and movies on myself, so I rarely watch them. After the first couple of hundred, they all seem the same, so why spend time watching them?

    I am interested to study the impact of TV and movies on impressionable people (whether police or young people). So far I have found few studies which seemed to shed useful light. There is a 4 volume set of books by ABC, written in the 1980s, which I have tracked down, but not yet read.

    As I understand it, studies have shown fairly low values of impact of violent programmes onto people’s behaviour. However, “fairly low” is very little satisfaction if your own child, or wife dies as a result of stupid violence, or hit and run driver, or bottle thrown from a fast moving car.

    When I lived in UK, I used to like “the Young Ones”. One episode showed one character rabbiting on and on, talking stupidly. Another character was getting bored, so put a rubbish sack over his head, but still couldn’t stop the incessant monologue. So he hammered a 9 inch nail through the rubbish sack and the idiot’s head, then the talking stopped. I remember thinking, say 5 million children watching, say 1 in 100,000 try to do that? That is 50 attempts and maybe 10 dead children? I didn’t hear of any deaths, so maybe the copy rate was less than 1 in 100,000? Is 1 in 100,000 “Fairly low”?

    More insidious is the ongoing impact desensitising some of the population to violence and uninhibiting their behaviour. Add some alcohol to the mix…

    You appear to deprecate my comment about police, but their violence in USA causes about 3% of the entire homicide deaths. Small, but certainly not negligible. The problem is growing, rather than diminishing, so it isn’t a good example towards reducing community violence.

    Please quote to me your sources? I do want to improve my knowledge in this area.

    You mentioned Fran O’Sullivan’s comment on Q&A this morning and the resounding silence of the men panelists. I guess it shows the combination of their ignorance on the subject and embarrassment (shame?). I suspect that if they knew actual statistics, they would be much less embarrassed. This demonstrates the power of ongoing media manipulation and hiding the truth. Better access to honest information is the cure. MoMA and others are doing their best to serve in that area.

    Cheers, Murray.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 4th October 2015 @ 8:13 pm

  16. On police I did miss that comment, I would have thought if their violence is increasing the more signifigant factor would be zero tolerance policies, or new abilities/equiptment/policies/training to be prepared for worse case senarioes effectivly hyping them up for conflict? But I simply do not know of any study of the psycometric profiles of recruits, and doubt it would be public if it existed, you might be right and this could be worth investigating.

    I have no sources except there are plenty of you tube vids comparing Anita Sarkesian (Sexist games) to Jack Thompson (TV violence), and most show violent crime/rape/murder stats fallling in US as violence increases. One conflating point was the Crack war that peaked in the mid 90’s and long sentences have removed a lot of drug enforcers. However the stats are also falling in NZ/UK/OZ that did not have the same drug war. The drug fuelled (+ unemployment) rise in violence was what Jack Thompson pointed to, but ignored once the stats turned.

    Sargon of Akkad has good references to his material, I assume including these. Dept o Justice is the main source.

    None show effects on that one lone wolf that causes problems (not without back reasoning anyway).

    The academic SJW crowd in these types of matters have turned from trying to demonstrate direct or explicit effects on the mind (which dont hold population wise), from racism, sexism, violent actions/thoughts towards implicit bias, increases in “irratibility” or snap judgements (of course i’m irritated when you interupt my TV/Game to ask questions), that they can find some albeit weak support for. These are just much harder to disprove in individual cases.

    Comment by JnF — Mon 5th October 2015 @ 5:48 pm

  17. Wow so I don’t care much for this… Especially since it resembles sinister.

    Comment by Priscilla Komlofske — Thu 7th September 2023 @ 7:59 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.

Skip to toolbar