More Nonsense About Alleged Patriarchy
Take a look and wonder at this piece yesterday of confused thinking and outlandish feminist claims: Priya Chand: The perilous politics of patriarchy
- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
Take a look and wonder at this piece yesterday of confused thinking and outlandish feminist claims: Priya Chand: The perilous politics of patriarchy
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.
I also wonder if Chand also knows that men’s rights are, in FACT, human rights. The writing is one person’s personal opinions which she has every right to express. Her Pacific Island comments have validity and was the primary reason for Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga being appointed Corrections Minister but of course he studiously ignored those islander issues.
She fell down there, she accidentally made it a gender neutral sentence – silly girl.
Amazing what the Herald will clutch at just to be a bitch.
I saw that item and a dozen male vilifying ones besides. I can set my clock by them. It sure makes it impossible for me to regard women and many men too as my equal. I could never trust or respect their ethics or intellect. In the case of males referred to above, case in point, Ian Lees-Galloway; a policeman and various other doubtful types running through Palmerston North recently in support of White-Ribbon. Then our local police are recording videos of Family violence statements – Now whats the bet there will be few if any males on that collection? I know in our case the constable blamed me for her behaviour. I came to consider myself very lucky for not being arrested for having a male pulse; and so no statement was recorded. Nobody arrested; and so our case never happened and we don’t exist. The irony indeed is that our principal victims are both female; but they also don’t exist and are not counted – Why? I can only guess their crime is to be saved by Dad.
Oh well, I will go hack to hiding away.
In reply to Jono: Its as if males are not even Human. Indeed they would be better respected if we were bacteria. Women and feminists are allowed to avoid responsibility for creating, raising and programming us in the first place. WE just appear as if aliens from some noxious world. I note that Government, NGO’s, groups and feminists will never take responsibility for themselves.
straw man argument. “60% of women and girls face sexual and gender-based violence” and where exactly are you getting this figure from. Stop making up numbers on some arbitrary census done. How on earth could you get that figure, as if that represents reality. How stupid/pointless and pathetic. Yes violence is a problem in life, I wish it wasn’t but it is. Let’s get those black ribbons out. Anti-violence not anti men.
I don’t get too involved on the basis of statistics, which are to my experience utterly worthless. The sources and the method of collecting statistics and data selections are pre-arranged to come up with the result the commissioner of the survey wants.
I can’t know, but even if it happened to be true that ‘60% of women and girls face sexual and gender-based violence’, [and I’m not saying that is true], then there is something missing from the discussion. As usual, the bit missing relates to the problems boys face. I have raised two girls, and in doing that have got a got glimpse at the boys around them. Frankly I feel sad for boys and men these days. They suffer a host of problems including sexual violence.
Let it not be forgot that too many males have a chivalrous bone, which dictates they will defend the honour of the women around them, and do that unquestioningly. That’s fine if the girls are the “sugar and spice type” but sugar and spice is a fiction. So this chivalrous conduct does manifest often in male on male violence/murder instigated by a female, even by female lies. So my point is that a lot of what boys face is not so easy to detect.
A lady who calls here often had three sons and a daughter. One son committed suicide. The daughter at age 16 hiked off to live with a guy of 49yrs old who had infiltrated into the family as a friend over many years. The daughter is now dismantling the family using false allegations against both remaining brothers and the father. The daughter’s fraternal twin brother has bad luck with girls. Some are so dangerous. He has been grievously injured on several occasions I know of, but he never goes to hospital. He goes away to hide and recover. He is never counted. The female offender [ sorry “VICTIM” 🙂 ] in this case has taken a lewd name for herself [ I’ve met her and based on that I find the stories of her entirely believable]. She has a long record of violence.
Now that’s a hell of a lot coming from just one family which I know of. I’ve seem much more.
And finally, I have not seen any statistics which would count us, my daughters or me. Statistics are the tools of the corrupt.
I actually abridged the story of my friend’s family to prevent positive identification – believe me, its actually much worse.
And as I type this One of the many hysterical local fems is going off her scone at someone. I never hear the other party whom I assume to be male. Its as I men have at least learned that to yell back can get them locked up. In arguments like this, the fems have all the power and they have no problem yelling extreme obscenities throughout the whole street. Not that this row has spilled onto the street, there is a guy trying to stand up for himself in controlled fashion. Imagine being a child of one of these women.
Hah that’s nothing.
A minimum of 40% of pregnancy’s don’t have the males consent.
IE about 80% chance per male based on two kids.
And the victim pays, and pays, and pays.
60% short term for females.
80% forever for males.
Now there is some bigotry.
I woke this morning with a very depressing question, “Is it possible for there to be any non-violent, non abusive interaction between males and females which cannot be portrayed by modern definition to be violent and or abusive?”.
Traditionally, the male is expected to take the initiative, and as such must be the perpetrator in every interaction – he has no other position available to him.
I can only think the reason the statistic against males isn’t 100% violent and abusive, is there still is a population of females who don’t tow the extremist feminist line. But the potential for a 100% statistic is there. However males are not at all to blame, but aren’t we trapped by this culture and tradition. My experience s that unless I showed interest by making the first move, females assumed I did not like them – hell I was so misinformed by my mum that I imagined myself a “gentleman” who of course could not touch a girl. That upbringing kept me kind of safe, but it also saw some lovely female friends give up al depart – that is until I fathomed out something was wrong with my programming.
So modern definitions laws and feminist extremism means that all of us can be claimed to be a violent and sexual abuser just for acting naturally. If a woman acts naturally, she automatically is the victim. That’s not equality.
Yes, we agree Equality. The expectations on men are contradictory and very unclear. Warren Farrell pointed out that women continue widely to choose swaggering, powerful and/or aggressive men while the males who try to behave according to feminist claimed preferences end up being left on the heap. Nothing much has changed in the biology of what females find attractive.
Feminism has turned gender interaction into a minefield for men by expanding and muddying definitions. Sexual harassment used to mean persistent personal behaviour after the perpetrator had been asked to discontinue, or pressure placed on a subordinate to participate in sexual activity under the promise of pleasant or unpleasant consequences. Now, sexual harassment means ‘any male behaviour that a woman didn’t like or later decided she didn’t like’ regardless of whether she ever made this clear and almost regardless of the nature of the behaviour. It’s frankly dangerous for any male to comment positively on a female’s appearance, to attempt humour or to ask a colleague out. So we saw Roger Sutton labelled an harasser and even a workplace bully when he had never been told his jokes and friendliness were unwelcome, we saw John Key labelled a sexual harasser although no clear communication had been made that his ponytail touching was uncomfortable until the very last occasion whereupon he immediately desisted and quickly apologized, and many other males have been burned at the feminist stake for much less.
Rape was once a word to describe sexual intercourse that a woman was physically forced to endure against her clearly expressed wishes. Now it has been expanded and muddied (including through the invention of an equivalent offence called ‘sexual violation’) to include all manner of sexual behaviour that isn’t necessarily intercourse, doesn’t necessarily involve force and need not involve any evidence that it was against a woman’s will. Men don’t realize that almost any sexual behaviour they participate in could be subsequently represented as rape, the equivalent sexual violation or indecent assault. Indecent assault used to be a sensible term applying to non-consensual touching of a person’s sexual or erogenous areas, but now you can be convicted of indecent assault for touching a woman anywhere and in any way. Malaysian diplomat Rizalman pleaded guilty to indecent assault when he touched Ms Billingsley only on the shoulder. The evidence now suggests there was no realistic sexual component to his behaviour at all and that he was passive and non-violent throughout. But definitions are now so over-inclusive that his actions were legally defined as indecent assault and feminists referred to the case as evidence of a NZ ‘rape culture’.
Let’s take a closer look at Ms Chand’s article.
Yes, the 60% figure is given without reference to its source. It is said to refer to “the Pacific Island region” which would include NZ but we are given no information about the research method for deriving a figure across such a diverse range of communities. The 60% figure is also said to refer to “sexual and gender-based violence”. What does that mean? If it’s referring to violence towards women, that’s gender-based but that term manipulatively implies much more. If it’s referring to violence done to women by men, why didn’t she simply write “violence from men”? Is all violence done by men or done to women ‘gender-based violence’? If someone reacts violently when catching his/her partner in bed with an extramarital lover, that’s not ‘gender-based violence’, it’s infidelity-based violence that even happens in homosexual partnerships. Or if someone acts violently because a family member took his/her car without permission, that’s disrespect-based violence not gender-based. We guess that Ms Chand’s idea is that if the violence is committed by a male then it’s ‘gender based’ but if committed by a female it’s something else. Typical feminist ideology. The meanings of her claims are all academic anyway because the 60% figure is almost certainly either invented or based on unscientific, dishonest ‘research’ not worthy of that title.
Even more important, no comparative figure was given regarding the proportion of males in “the Pacific Island region” who have been the victims of violence. It’s likely that is even higher than for females which presents a challenge to any argument that the smaller proportion of violence specifically directed towards females must reflect patriarchy.
Ms Chand then provides a number of personal experiences that she claimed reflect ‘patriarchy’. Some of them clearly didn’t. For example, the lunch date scenario was more an example of feminist hypervigilant indignation than anything to do with patriarchy. Others, assuming their truthfulness, involved people expressing their individual opinions and/or behaving rudely or arrogantly rather than patriarchy, and were also described without contextual information. Rude, arrogant behaviour and ill-considered opinions are also frequently shown by individual females and we could provide plenty of examples of that, but we wouldn’t stretch logic to conclude they mean we live in a matriarchy.
Ms Chand then claimed that her examples of individual arrogance (such as a male not saying “please”) could somehow be “lethal”.
Apparently, patriarchy gives men the right to overpower and control women through violence that is often sanctioned. But actually, Ms Chand, there are laws against violence with specific laws against violence by men towards women, so how would that be the case if we really had a patriarchy?
Ms Chand then claimed no-one should be obliged to cook for their husband. But holding and expressing that belief would not even be tolerated in any real patriarchy. Besides, surely there is some obligation on spouses to carry out their agreed tasks. That some (a low proportion) of men might slap their wives when they come home hungry after working hard physically all day as their contribution to the family and find there is no dinner for them, has little to do with partriarchy. If the husband left his job without discussing this with his wife, then failed to provide expected money for rent and groceries, you can be sure she would consider he had failed his obligations and many women would slap their husbands or treat them with some other form of violence for such unreliability.
Ms Chand then refers to patriarchal influence on our social systems such as justice systems. Well yes, it’s true that males mainly developed our systems of politics, state machinery and commerce (as indeed males mainly invented the technology that makes life so comfortable in developed nations), so there will be an extent to which male perspectives underlie much of our civilization. It’s likely that women would have influenced and invented to a much greater extent had they not been constrained to gender roles in the past. But actually, men deserve credit for the civilization we now enjoy, and women now have every opportunity to contribute to the development of social systems and to invent to their hearts’ content. In democracies women have the opportunity to vote female representatives in to government. Have we seen much real improvement resulting from this yet, aside from the assumption that it represents improvement in itself?
Ms Chand then unbelievably complained that gender stereoptypes, discrimination and the notion of cultural practices lead to reductions in sentencing for a proportion of male offenders! She ignored the fact that males are almost always sentenced more harshly than females for the same crimes and this is based exactly on gender stereotypes, discrimination.and longstanding cultural practice.
Ms Chand ends by claiming that it’s a ‘human right’ for women to live freely and without fear. What does that mean? Fear is the most fundamental and normal emotion that drives our behaviour, so when did it become a human right to be without it? You may as well decide that it’s a human right to live without the need to breathe! And what does ‘living freely’ mean? For Ms Chand it appears to mean that women should be given a human right to do whatever they want regardless of responsibilities they have agreed to, promises they have made or any moral, social or cultural expectations on them. Well Ms Chand, tell the many men being financially ruined by so-called ‘child support’ extortion under the threat of state violence to support the ‘independent’ lifestyles of women who have dishonoured their marital vows, and the many men trapped in dangerous, frightening jobs in order to survive and feed their families, and the many men being demanded to conform to feminist rules and preferences, that they have a human right to live freely and without fear!
So much simplistic, duplicitous tripe typical of much feminist thinking.
So Ms Chand does not think females are violent.
So the writer cared about her showing her knickers.
Sounds like a matriarchy issue.
How terrible. The worlds about to end.
The female did the I was drugged cop out.
It was someone else’s fault.
So watch the video.
What would happen to a male behaving with violence like she did.
DJ Ward, quite right, if a drunk male was filmed hitting a female in the head you can be sure police would try to prosecute and there would be loud shrieks of victim status from feminists demanding prosecution. But when a female does the same thing Ms du Plessis Allan is more concerned about the fact the violent woman embarrassed herself and should be protected from having her violence made public. And of course when it comes to a woman’s violence towards a man there is only silence from White Fibbin’. Go girl!
As you point out, drunk women who behave badly often claim their drinks were spiked. In Australian cities this is somewhat more likely than in NZ but in nightclubs as systematic predation, not at a daytime race meeting. Blood tests almost always show that women’s claims to have had their drinks spiked were wrong; they simply underestimated how much alcohol they had consumed and how drunk they were.
So, I grew up in an affluent country town, alcohol was very available, affordable, and the pubs were seldom policed for underage drinking.
There were of course some drunken males that caused a problem, but to put it simply, the girls just didn’t get drunk – yes, some got a bit pissy-eyed, but never violent and out of control.
Whether it was their upbringing, fear of their family, or what, I don’t know, but two things have changed:
a – we now have recorded footage available
b – there’s equality in bad behaviour
Analyse the reporter’s bias all you like, all I see, is a society in a far worse state than I grew up in.
Downunder wrote: “There were of course some drunken males that caused a problem, but to put it simply, the girls just didn’t get drunk – yes, some got a bit pissy-eyed, but never violent and out of control”. My first glimpse of violence was in 1970. I was with a pal under age at a North shore tavern trying to be inconspicuous. My first law breaking. Suddenly “You Bitch!” the smashing of glass and a woman had a broken bottle rammed into her face by the woman sitting opposite her. We left discretely expecting police to soon arrive. That was first violence I saw but not the last. I’ve been slapped a few times, but never knew why. But in my experiences, females have been more violent more often.
I did say – a country town, and I guess I was just lucky.