MRA Perspectives on Recent Events
It’s difficult to imagine anything more provocative than seeing a P-addled gang member bashing the shit out of your brother with the real possibility of death or permanent brain damage. That doesn’t mean it’s ok to have a slasher with you and to swing the steel end as hard as possible in to the P-addled gang member’s head, causing his or her hasty death. However, cases like this show just how nasty and unrealistic it was to remove the partial defence of provocation, at least for males in situations of true provocation. Michael Murray may have been able to run that partial defence and many reasonable people would have seen that as justified. He would still have been sent to prison for years and fair enough. It would have been possible under our current murder laws to sentence him to a non-parole period of less than 10 years but it seemed that, because privileged female half-celebrity Millie Elder was upset (at losing her P supplier?), this possible way of taking into account provocation was unconscionable. Either way, Michael Murray won’t spend his imprisonment in ‘solitary confinement’ as our stupid media have been reporting, but he will be in a protection block with mainly harmless sex offenders; that won’t be very safe or feel very safe to him though.
Until our laws realistically recognize that breaching marital or de facto marital contracts is doing a wrong that needs some form of redress, ex-partner violence will continue. In fact, the more our society condones relationship infidelity and family trashing and the more our Courts defend people’s right to breach marital contracts and rip off partners, the more frequent and serious (ex-)partner violence will become. Even though formal marital contracts are now toothless and breaking them is fashionable, most people, men and women, will feel deeply emotionally threatened and experience serious trauma when a committed partner either breaches the understood contract or unilaterally decides to treat that contract as nonexistent. A requirement to compensate the aggrieved or abandoned partner would go a long way towards providing a sense of redress and justice to assist him/her to look towards new horizons. Impeccable fairness and equality on the part of the justice system would provide people with a sense of security and confidence that matters can be resolved satisfactorily. Even more importantly, when children are involved a rebuttable assumption of equal shared care would help an enormous number of fathers to move forward after separation confident in their ongoing role and connection with their children, reducing the fear, devestation and sense of injustice that so many fathers experience and that so often leads to desperate expression.
Tara Brown took a family and child away from her partner and obtained a protection order against him. Any danger she had been in was multiplied many times by the protection order because this impeded his contact and relationship with his child. Protection orders are a stupid provocation especially for truly dangerous respondents, i.e. the ones protection orders were invented to protect people against.
None of this is an excuse for Lionel Patea’s vicious murder of Ms Brown and he will quite properly be prosecuted and if found guilty punished with one of the harshest sentences available. However, surely it behoves us to identify factors and approaches that either increase or reduce serious violence? Our current approach involves rewarding rather than punishing those who deprive their children of the security and identity of a family unit, defending people’s right to indulge in selfish and immoral behaviour while punishing their defrauded partners for daring to object, encouraging dishonourable, unreliable attitudes towards social contracts and committed partners’ investments in partnerships, and treating men who don’t fit in with this morally destructive social engineering more and more harshly and with ever decreasing standards of fairness and justice. This approach can only be expected to increase violence through increasing the tension and desperation that produces violence. No matter how much the White Ribboners spread their false propaganda and bang their self-righteous chests, and no matter how much celebrities like Stan Walker call for men to “respect, protect, honour and love our girls”, violence won’t reduce until we show respect, honour, fairness and caring towards males too.
Another little matter concerning this case is that Tara Brown’s partner was a member of a violent criminal gang. Will the next slut-walk now demand: “Women have the right to be safe no matter whom they find hunky enough to fuck and then fuck over by abandoning them and/or taking their children away. Just because we associate with gang members, murderers, psychopaths or necrophiliacs doesn’t mean we’re asking to be harmed! Society owes it to us to ensure we can behave in any foolish way we want without risk.”
It’s unacceptable to retaliate with violence when your committed partner does you the violence of deceit and sexual infidelity. Martin Schofield clearly didn’t agree with this rule though, and he also expressed his satisfaction about his crime to his partner’s daughters whom he accused of assisting her in betraying him. He was imprisoned for murder with a minimum period before parole of 11 years. Learning he was being lied to and cheated on certainly amounted to provocation, but there was no mention in media reports of provocation and the sentence itself gave no suggestion that provocation had been taken into account. Therefore we see that the government’s promise, when the partial defence of provocation was removed, that provocation would be reflected in sentencing instead isn’t being honoured. Who would have thought?
This article quoted “…local MP Su’a William Sio said it was unacceptable to use culture and religion to justify violence against children, girls and women”.
Children, girls and women? WTF? The incident leading to the PC authorities descending in bulk on this Tongan Christian school involved a MALE student being stabbed in the head with scissors by another student. The MALE offender was said to have been subjected to bullying for a long time. You can be sure that the physical punishments, clips around the ear etc that the teachers meted out in their traditional Tongan way were directed almost exclusively towards MALE students. But Mr Sio seems to think that violence towards males doesn’t really happen or isn’t really as important as violence towards girls and women is.
Ms Foreman made this claim during a speech to a women’s group at an event hosted by the Women’s Collective. Her claim achieved the presumably desired response: “Everyone was in disbelief and said ‘oh my God’… to think that this happens in this day and age…”.
But actually, did it happen? Where’s the evidence? Did she go to the police and was her claim investigated? It doesn’t seem so. For all we know it was just a story she made up to appeal to the audience and help increase her fortune. If a man puts his hand up a woman’s skirt without consent he is liable to imprisonment for up to 7 years if the prosecution is for Indecent Assault or considerably longer if the crime is prosecuted as, for example, Attempted Sexual Violation. His reputation will be ruined and he’s likely forever to be discriminated against by his community and harassed by police about any sexual crime in his region, and put on a sexual offenders register. So how likely is it that a businessman in negotiations with Ms Foreman would commit this crime?
Even if something like Ms Foreman’s claimed event occurred she hasn’t disclosed the contextual details and of course the unnamed businessman hasn’t given his side of the story. Perhaps Ms Foreman was using her woman’s charm, should she be in possession of such, to manipulate the man in the negotiations and perhaps he innocently misinterpreted her ploy as resembling honesty and making it safe for him to attempt a gesture towards intimacy. Perhaps his gesture was to touch her lightly and ambiguously just above the knee to test whether she might give an encouraging response, and she has then exaggerated this to ‘putting his hand up my skirt’.
Many women who participate in feminist ‘research’ surveys may well tick the ‘yes’ box as being victims of whatever not because they have actually experienced that victimization but because they believe it’s their responsibility to support the feminist propaganda cause. Ms Foreman clearly wanted to push the feminist line of “It’s so hard for women in business because thy constantly have to cope with sexual harassment”, so it would have been convenient for her to make up an experience to suit, an experience for which there is absolutely no evidence and no opportunity for anyone to investigate. In doing so however, regardless that there may be any truth to her claim, she has denigrated men generally and the unnamed male representative she targetted had no opportunity to defend himself or his gender.
Another matter in this story is that of women’s groups. Feminists have pilloried men for having male clubs and have muscled their way into pretty well every male domain and space, yet they still think it’s ok to have women’s groups, events, gyms and other services exclusively for women. Shall we men stand outside the next ‘Women’s Collective’ event with placards decrying their sexism? Seems a good idea but probably won’t dent the duplicitous self-entitlement of the feminists responsible.
This is typical wording for media articles when males are victims. No mention is made of the gender of the service station attendant who was terrorized when threatened by robbers wielding and firing a gun during the crime. No, it was the ‘service station’ that was held up, and how frightened that service station must have been! If however the attendant had been female, the media article would have made a meal of that, exploiting public sympathy for a damsel in distress. In the present case we can be confident that the service station attendant was only a mere male whose gender isn’t important enough to mention. God forbid, mentioning the male gender might start causing the public to recognize that actually it’s males who work the most dangerous, sole-charge midnight shifts and actually it’s males who are subjected to violence much more often and much more severely than females are in our society and actually males hurt just as much and die just as fully when subjected to violence. Wouldn’t want that stuff to get out there would we now? However, the article certainly didn’t hold back on emphasizing that the OFFENDERS were males.
Similarly, some of our police officers have been using unnecessary violence in arresting ‘people’.
“The identity of a Counties Manukau police officer charged with assaulting three people he arrested can now be revealed.”
This article at least specified the male gender of the victims in the several cases specifically described. Often, articles will bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the gender of male victims. However, if all the ‘people’ subjected to unneccessary violence during arrests were male, why obfuscate this by using the term ‘people’ at all? And we can assume they were all male because if even one of the victims had been female, this would have been highlighted.
Yes, not to mention the seriously damaged lives of the victims, both the children born to alcohol abusing mothers and to the victims of those children’s sometimes problematic behaviour throughout their lives. However, we can’t hold pregnant women responsible for this child abuse, ostensibly because a foetus is not officially a child with human rights but mainly because any attempt to control pregnant women’s behaviour will be met with feminists screaming sexism. Yet if a male punches a pregnant woman he can expect a significantly harsher punishment because of potential damage to the foetus as an aggravating factor. Strangely enough, it is illegal to abort a foetus without proper permission even though an aborted foetus won’t suffer a life of handicap and hardship, whereas there’s nothing illegal about abusing a foetus that will be brought to birth to suffer life-long effects of that abuse. It’s long since time that the foetus be given greater human rights beyond being merely an organ belonging to the pregnant woman as the feminists would have it when it suits them.
So we have a new test for prostate cancer that is much more reliable with fewer false positives than previoius tests. Great! As MRAs we look forward to the imaginative excuses our politicians and government departments will offer as they resist establishing any free screening programmes for men. Can’t afford it, and they’re only men so who cares?
So Pip Dunphy abandoned her post as chairperson of Solid Energy’s management board, and now fellow woman Fran O’Sullivan hails her action as being one of brave whistleblowing. But it seems she simply left without blowing any whistles at all, leaving a sinking ship apparently for her own preservation. When men do that they are seen as self-serving cowards and in the army they will face court martial and a possible firing squad. We acknowledge that we have little knowledge about the subtleties of highly paid board membership and we might be missing something here, but we think it’s another example of ‘girls can do anything…and should be helped to get away with it’.
The feminist state is so keen to protect the ‘women good, men bad’ belief it has so strenuously established that it may go to the lengths of suppressing publication of the gender of a female offender as happened in this case. We wouldn’t want the public to start thinking that females are also sometimes violent towards males, would we? (Damn those mobile phone videos of the Manurewa High School girls stomping and punching each other; don’t these photographers realize they’re threatening the propaganda!) Of course, we can’t be sure this teenager who stabbed a male Christchurch pensioner to death was a female. But we would like to take bets. If you bet it’s a male and this proves to be correct, our totalisator calculates a winning dividend of $3027, whereas if you bet it’s a female and this proves to be correct the winning divident will be 0.03 cents. So get your bets in! Oh sorry, we don’t have a licence to run a gambling operation. So just bet among yourselves.