Some Recent News Stories of Interest
Are man-minding services offensive?
This humourous man-minding service is apparently spreading around retail places, offering to look after women’s husbands / partners to relieve the women from care-giving of their man-children and to let them shop in peace. Most men seem happy to take the joke in good humour but then most men don’t think about the implications. Feminists of course, that group claiming to want gender equality, aren’t bothered when men are treated in ways that would be totally unacceptable for women.
Woman sentenced over kidnapping of 8-week-old baby
Another pussy pass of considerable proportions. Kidnapping carries a maximum tarrif of 14 years imprisonment, so how does this case result in such a small punishment even though it involved aggravating factors of a completely vulnerable baby victim and huge distress caused to other parties? The female judge referred to this woman as being young and confused; compare the kind of comments one would expect towards a male offender who kidnapped a baby!. So for this kidnapping PLUS four unrelated fraud offences in which she deliberately ripped off inncocent parties, the woman received four-and-a-half months home detention and 150 hours community work.
‘That’s what you get for being white’
And here’s another pussy pass for a woman who was in a group that randomly attacked someone from another group, then she violently attacked one of them even though police were already intervening to establish control of the situation. Not only did this woman commit serious violence, she repeatedly taunted one of the victims with the words “That’s what you get for being white”. She then resisted arrest. As usual, police charged her with the minimum number of offences possible (when they would have charged any male in similar circumstances with other offences such as resisting arrest or violence towards police). This racist, violent woman who showed no regard for her commitments as a citizen of a civilized state was sentenced to 140 hours’ community work. Yeah right, ‘Violence is not OK’ unless it’s done by a female.
Sleepless nights for Tiger Woods over Vonn split, father’s death
Tiger Woods’ life is proceeding very much as would be expected from post-concussion effects of the moderately serious closed head injury he suffered either directly, indirectly or both as a result of his ex-wife’s domestic violence towards him. From the time of that concussion his golf has reduced significantly though he’s still capable of good play on a good day. He has caused his body various injuries through playing with a brain that just isn’t putting his movements together smoothly as it used to. His new relationship has broken up. Yet police did not charge his ex-wife with domestic violence (and they did not need him to lay a complaint because their laws, as in NZ, allows them to prosecute even when the victim doesn’t want them to). Media undertook no investigative journalism about the incident that changed Tiger Woods’ life and since then media have ignored the elephant in Tiger Woods’ room, that he has been permanently damaged through domestic violence.
Injured boy, 2, ran on to road twice
Essentially because of fanciful feminist ideology and dishonest, manipulative lobbying, care givers for children in NZ are now not allowed to use physical force in discipline. That appears to have led to this toddler being seriously injured because he ran on to the road for a second time after his adult caregiver responded to the same behaviour shortly earlier in one of the ineffectual ways available to her now under our law. If this toddler had experienced a brief shock of harmless physical pain through a smack on his legs when he ran on to the road the first time, it’s highly unlikely he would have done so a second time. But such caring, responsible and sensible parenting would have landed the grandmother in Court for ‘assaulting’ the boy.
Prostate cancer: Kiwi men are dying too soon
A study on prostate cancer treatment and survival showed that in NZ treatment is poorly organised and, when the severity of the condition and other factors were controlled for, men in NZ are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than men in Britain. Men in NZ are more likely to die from prostate cancer than in other developed countries, and are less likely to receive gold standard forms of treatment. Oh sorry, I forgot, screening for prostate cancer is a bit less reliable than for female cancers so we should just sit on our hands and let men die. It’s promising though that a study has been done and the problem is being recognized.
Why are prostate cancer outcomes in NZ so poor?
And of course the Radio NZ interviews about the prostate cancer research showed little interest in identifying the extent to which sexism and callousness towards males had contributed to the poor treatment and high death rate. Instead, Nine to Noon’s Kathryn Ryan mainly sought to turn the debate towards the race factor that sees Maori men die at a higher rate than pakeha men. Maori of course fare more poorly on most health matters and that is an important issue to address, but it’s no reason to obfuscate the gender discrimination that underlies the poor management of prostate cancer compared with cancers mainly affecting women. Radio NZ previously championed the right of women suffering from breast cancer to receive multi-million dollar individual increases in the duration of taxpayer funded Herceptin even though the efficacy of this change had not been properly established. That kind of favouritism and resource allocation towards women actually underlies the dire situation in NZ for men dying from prostate cancer.
AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd wanted employee ‘taken out’
Feminists often complain that female celebrities, politicians etc have their appearance and clothing reported on even though such matters are irrelevant to the story. This article shows that attention to appearance and clothing is not simply a gender thing because male celebrities can get the same treatment. The difference is that when it’s done regarding a female, the feminists get up in arms but when it’s done regarding a male the silence from feminists is deafening.
Campaign tackles myth of women ‘asking for it’ through clothing, behaviour
Here’s another of the many articles spreading confusion, female paranoia and unbalanced consideration about sexual provocation, consent and rape. Of course it’s fair to assert that the clothes a woman wears does not mean she is asking to be raped. However, a general issue around articles such as this one is the lack of any responsibility expected from women concerning the messages they put out through their clothing and behaviour, or for ethically managing the sexual power nature has given women over men.
Aside from that, the claims made by feminists concerning investigation of rape allegations deserve to be challenged. The fact that police will ask a woman who alleges rape what she was wearing will be based on their need to investigate the case and to gather evidence for a possible prosecution of the rapist. The question will in no way be a suggestion that the woman was responsible for being raped, as the feminists suggest. Other questions will also be related to proper investigation. It’s appropriate and essential (if justice is of any concern) that police ask a female complainant why she decided to let an alleged rapist in the house when he knocked at the door, and so forth. It’s not a suggestion that she’s responsible for being raped if indeed a rape happened, but it’s necessary firstly to rule out the very real possibility that the complaint is false for any of numerous reasons and secondly to prepare a case in anticipation of the questions that will inevitably and reasonably arise in Court. Feminist interpretation of such police questioning is clearly disingenuous and aimed at maintaining women’s perpetual victim mentality. What feminists actually want is for women to be relieved of any scrutiny of their allegations against men. They want women to be given the power to send men to jail at their command. The state keeps on pandering to such feminist demands, protection orders and police safety orders already enabling women to force men out of their own homes and deprived of many normal civil rights (such as the right to parent and protect one’s children) on the basis of nothing more than a female’s demand. Feminists will rejoice when a woman’s word can have a man convicted of rape and sent to jail for 20 years without any need for her to answer questions about her allegation.
Teenage witness tells of indecency
And finally for today, this teacher was undeniably foolish, naughty and in breach of his employment rules. However, the case shows how male sexuality is demonized. A teenage male student claimed to have seen a teacher masturbating in an empty, locked classroom during lunchtime. The teacher admitted he was looking at pornography on a laptop but denied he was masturbating. The student claimed that he knew the door was locked but he got his friends to lift him up so he could peer in the classroom window, and he claimed he did this because he wanted to speak to the teacher about moving into a more advanced class. This account doesn’t sound credible because peering in the window of a locked classroom would not enable him to address his matter with the teacher. The student was in a class for low-achieving pupils and may well have been prone to behaviour problems.
But regardless of the facts of the matter, the student is being portrayed by the prosecution as being terrified and traumatized by what he claimed to see. This is the first demonization. Why would a normal male behaviour cause deep trauma? Why would a teenage boy who probably masturbates himself find such a problem with the fact that another adult male also does it? The suggestions given to the boy by (mainly female) teachers when he told on this teacher and by the (probably female) police interviewer would have involved exaggeration of the incident and the idea that it must have been terrifyingly traumatic. Then again, perhaps the boy’s emotional difficulty in talking about his allegation was due more to his awareness that he was not being entirely honest, or his awareness that spying on private situations should at least be kept to oneself.
More general demonization is apparent in the lack of respect shown for a male’s privacy. If this same male teacher had his mates lift him up to look into a locked room where some female teachers happened to be undressing for a dress rehearsal of the school play, he would likely be facing charges of peeping and peering rather than the females being charged for indecent exposure. Men it seems don’t deserve privacy or most other rights.
Even more general is the double standard that demonizes male interests. If a female teacher used her school-issued laptop to ogle at male celebrities or royals that might be depicted in the online edition of ‘Woman’s Day’, nobody would bat an eyelid even though she broke rules concerning use of school property for personal purposes. But when a male looks at equally legal material (because if it had been illegal the prosecution would be making a meal of that) that men tend to more interested in, it’s sullied and demonized. He is quickly forced out of his job and suspended from his whole career based only on his admission that he looked at what interests males (because the allegation of (gasp) masturbating had not yet been proven).
Further demonization is clear in his suspension as a teacher, because even if he was masturbating whilst looking at pornography in a room he reasonably expected to be private this did not mean he presented a risk to pupils as a teacher. It’s simply superstitious to suggest he was a risk. He presented a risk of being a male who might break minor employment rules that are routinely broken by other teachers. He presented the risk of believing he should be able to engage in a normal male way to dissipate the high stress involved in his work, as long as he took some steps to ensure privacy. To turn this into a terrifying crime is just typical of the sexist disrespect we see towards males and maleness in the feminist era.