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

Women muscle in on men’s sports

Filed under: Gender Politics,General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 5:52 pm Sun 25th October 2015

Watched the rugby semi final All Blacks vs Springboks. Not sure what interviews were shown after the match on NZ television but the broadcast we saw involved an English female interviewer questioning the captains and others. She asked inane questions with hackneyed comments about the Springboks ‘asking a lot of questions’ of the All Blacks in the match and such like. There was no question of particular insight or relevance to the match, such as concerning the large number of penalties incurred by NZ that actually provided the Sth Africans with all their points. It seemed that a female interviewer was chosen out of some ideological principle but she lacked basic understanding of the game and bullshitted her way through. Women feel they must, and are entitled to, muscle their way into every male domain, and believe that men should not be allowed any clubs or domains of their own while female-only groups and services abound. Would we see a male interviewing the captains etc after a major netball match? We doubt it. But if that ever were to happen it’s likely that the man would learn something about the game and ask some useful questions.


  1. Gets up my nose seeing males refereeing top netball though.

    Comment by allan — Mon 26th October 2015 @ 12:06 pm

  2. Women are more sports minded. Count the number of women out running to keep fit versus the number of men. Far more women than men these days.

    Comment by Amazed — Mon 26th October 2015 @ 12:47 pm

  3. Absolute bullshit Amazed.

    You actually think women go running to keep fit?

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 26th October 2015 @ 2:48 pm

  4. Any opportunity to turn rugby into domestic violence – Rachel Stewart

    New Zealand has reached the pinnacle of world number one in domestic violence statistics. We now have the highest reported rate of intimate partner violence in the developed world.

    Police undertook more than 100,000 investigations into domestic abuse last year. In 2013 children were present at 63 per cent of the callouts police attended.

    Yet, it’s estimated that 90 per cent of family violence goes unreported.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 27th October 2015 @ 4:46 am

  5. @ 4 OPINION:
    There’s no doubt that New Zealand’s epidemic of domestic violence lies firmly at the feet of men. As does the solution.

    This is true, men need to stand up and demand that they have rights when they are victims of abuse and they should protest and demand to be seen as equals.
    The day police stop the current policy of ‘finding the man responsible by default’ and conform to the promise’s every sworn in officer has made, domestic violence in NZ will be instantly reduced by 50 % at least.- INSTANTLY..Possibly much more if false accusers were punished.
    That oath- “without bias”.

    Sorry boys, but it’s just not acceptable to trot out the tired old line that women hit men too. It’s a fact that men physically hurt women many times more than the reverse, and implying anything else is just another form of abuse towards us.

    So its a tired old line, to talk about female attackers, Rachel can see no place for 40% of victims of family violence as they are Males so we should all just pretend they dont exist? Girls are made of all things nice and even “implying” that females can be violent- is abuse towards women?
    I take offence to this line more than anything I have had read for some time.
    Rachel is suggesting that hers is the last word on domestic violence and anyone who questions or argues is an abuser.

    New Zealand has reached the pinnacle of world number one in domestic violence statistics. We now have the highest reported rate of intimate partner violence in the developed world.
    We have the highest rate of reported violence. This does not prove we have the highest amount of violence, merely that we have the highest amount of accusers. We have no penalty for falsely accusing someone of violence and females are encouraged daily that they are by default victims and its really only a formality landing a guy in court accused of abuse. She keeps the house and the kids, He loses is dignity and respect in the eyes of all, regardless that he is not guilty.

    Police undertook more than 100,000 investigations into domestic abuse last year. In 2013 children were present at 63 per cent of the callouts police attended.

    Probably In 90% of the cases where police are called to intimate partner violence incidents that children are present at, the man will be removed or arrested.
    This seems silly considering that children are at a much higher risk of abuse or being killed by their mother than their father.
    I guess to point that out makes me a repeat offender.

    Yet, it’s estimated that 90 per cent of family violence goes unreported.
    Think on that for a moment. Sit with it. Let it sink in.

    Very few men would ever hit a woman. Why, because we adore women. To physically harm something we adore is not something men do with a knee jerk. To physically harm a woman is to loose all control and override strong instinct.
    We have a ‘”genetic,systems default” that is to protect what love and protect what we value.
    The vast majority of men have this default instinct, It doesn’t required special learned training, nor is it much to do with “fear of cowardice” its like peeing in your beer keg, its not something men would do lightly or inconsequentially.
    Usually Violence ‘normalized’, to a male in his youth or being provoked repeatedly is whats required before a man will strike back at a female.
    Yet women who want control in a relationship (the majority) are able to be quite freely violent with their men because, they know there will be no legal punishment, the guy will not normally react with violence,it is considered socially acceptable, its a form of assertion of the power they are wishing to demonstrate.
    Claims that 90% of violence goes unreported does not suggest that males are the perpetrators of violence 9 times more than is reported.
    Very few men will call the police on a violent partner as they would most likely be disbelieved, disregarded or arrested themselves.Male and female victims often have little faith that the police and prosecution process is appropriate or even capable of justice at all. Most fitting this category, have had prior experience to justify their concerns.

    It continues to fascinate and enrage me that the vast majority of men say nothing, do nothing, and appear to feel nothing about this horrific situation.
    Of course, it’s women who are doing the bulk of the speaking out and when we do, in many cases, we’re immediately subjected to – you guessed it – threats of violence.

    Rachel is not suggesting men voice their opinion but repeat her own opinion as we have already been told to disagree is just another form of abuse.
    Male victims don’t exist in Rachel’s world so the only ones left are “white nights” and male abusers to fix the problem. White nights don’t get proactive about reducing domestic violence because they have no understanding of it. They will come along for a walk on white ribbon day but don’t ask them to expand on their opinions, they can’t, its not their own opinion. Males that abuse females with regularity are hardly going to be the ones to encourage others to stand against violence.
    Rachel is right about the women though. Women control the domestic violence industry. The profits are massive, 80 billion dollars estimated over the next ten years is an industry that’s protected by the the most stringent misinformation campaigns.
    The advertising is pervasive with multi media applications and a new catch phrase every few months.
    All designed by women.

    The Tony Veitch saga last week was a case in point. If you missed it let me avail you of the short version.

    The sports commentator decided to post a moronic comment during the All Blacks vs France match saying that he “didn’t get” the difference between “a punch” and “a fist to the face”.

    Tony is a sports commentator, he was doing his job to comment on an incident on the field.
    Rachel has no comment as to what occurred on the field because to her, no male can be a victim of violence. She feels that he should not be able to comment freely on an incedent between two men because of a crime her committed six years earlier.

    I say “moronic” because, unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’d know that Veitch was convicted in 2009 of injuring his former partner with reckless disregard after pleading guilty. In fact, he broke her back.

    So while his online tittering on Facebook may simply have been a poor choice of words, he was inundated with messages from all and sundry about what an awful human being he is. Hard to disagree.
    So as Tony is a male, he can’t be the victim of online abuse ? The hate campaign is discribed as “messages,- about what an awful human being he is”.

    He quickly took to Facebook lashing out at his critics in a little rant about how ostensibly he was the victim in the whole broken back saga. Which set them off again.
    Telling his “haters” to “growup”.
    Does not describe how ‘ostensibly he was the victim’.

    Then his army of predominantly male fans decided to enter stage right.
    Tony’s comments on sports are considered worthwhile info to sports fans of both sexes.
    He is also well known for his charity work and his enthusiasm.
    He has a large online following of 150 000.

    They told the female commenters just what they could do with themselves. Their ‘advice’ involved dildos, slur after slur about their physical appearance, and that they just needed a few uppercuts to the head.

    At no stage, that I’m aware of, did Veitch ask his band of merry men to back off. Silence. A fairly stock-standard response to the whole awful business of the prolific beating of women in this country.
    They are not his army, nor are they all men.
    He is not responsible for their comments defending his right to speak about and indecent between men .

    So what would I have men do differently?

    First off they need to use seriously loud voices about the issue. They have seriously loud voices about rugby, or anything else they deem worthy. Why not this?

    They must speak up when other men make sexist and derogatory remarks about women in their presence. Because we all know that violence towards women stems from such casual misogyny. Don’t we?
    Ok, so did you blokes get that? No more jokes about females. They are sacred,holey and pure.
    If you hear anyone else even compare sexes unfavorably towards women you should speak up in a loud voice because if you don’t, you can consider yourself a co conspirator or an enabler or an abuser. and because you ‘know’ all violence comes from this sinister “casual misogyny”.
    Dont we? (with us or against us..with the terrorists.?..)

    More than this, they need to act.

    If men are aware of any woman being physically beaten and abused by her partner they need to send a posse around to have a friendly chat with him.
    A posse for a friendly chat? Why not call the police?
    Posse’s dont do friendly chats, we are now being encouraged to use threats of violence against eachother.

    I do not say this lightly. My life experiences have taught me that men who habitually beat women tend to only respect the might and disapproval of other men.

    The situation would improve if a father, a brother and a son – and a male friend or two for good measure – were to collectively approach the abuser of their daughter, sister, mother or friend. Call it an intervention.
    So violence against males is an Intervention, Violence against females is equivalent to the holocaust.

    Let the abuser feel the same fear the woman in his life has come to feel every single day. Just the threat of force would possibly be enough, but if it isn’t, well, human nature being what it is you can probably guess the rest.
    We do not need to guess that Rachel expects males to attack other males based on no more than a suspicion that he is violent. We are being asked to gang up and assault or kill men.
    We should sacrifice ourselves likely spending years imprisoned?

    It’s likely deemed a politically incorrect method, I know. However, ineffective laws and talk-fests and online shaming have only seen our domestic violence statistics steadily rising.
    Politically incorrect is not a term to be used for actions that are highly illegal and WILL land you in prison for years.

    As for the rest of that comment about talkfests and online shaming, now I get it. Its Tony she wants beaten up.

    We call a bunch of good men who take the car keys off their drunk mate, potentially saving lives in the process, “bloody legends”.

    I’d call a bunch of good men who intervene in potentially saving a woman’s life at the hands of a violent man “bloody legends” too. Wouldn’t you?
    Somehow I dont think Rachel would turn up at visiting hours to thank male prisoners for their preemptive sacrifice.

    Or does the fact that I’ve written this – a mere woman – qualify me for online comments about dildos, my physical appearance and uppercuts too?
    ‘Mere Male’ is a term I’ve heard a lot. Men are generally more respectful.
    Rachel, Im not sure a dildo would satisfy you, unless it had a dead male attached.
    As far as uppercuts go, you seem to have advocated violence quite thoroughly over seven paragraphs, now your asking if you yourself will be threatened?

    I’m hopeful that will not be the case, but then I’m also hopeful that domestic violence against women will one day become socially unacceptable too.

    Over to you, men.
    Fella’s, please pay no attention to criminal violence advocators like Rachel Stewart and her attempts to encourage us form groups to assault or kill each other.
    Just ring the cops if you suspect violence against someone.
    I don’t know how she gets away with inciting this dangerous campaign or why online news would run her article,It is illegal to publicly campaign for violence but like most female crimes, we just ignore them and watch the rugby.

    Thanks Downunder for posting.

    Comment by voices back from the bush — Wed 28th October 2015 @ 1:35 am

  6. And reason why domestic violence statistics are not improving?
    Because the paid provision tasked with looking into the causes of DV, seems to prefer the preservation of the employment position, rather than to actually look into ALL the causes of DV.

    Comment by MrFatsworth — Thu 29th October 2015 @ 3:30 pm

  7. Many years ago I learnt a good lesson.(1994,95?)
    Sythia Luckham I think. Sorry I’m useless with names.
    I was a member of a NZ tug of war teem in Palmerston North.
    I was good enough to become part of the 5 man North Island teem.
    But in training I had a one on one 2 minute contest with her.
    She was twice my age and was 10 kg lighter.
    She kicked my arse.
    Females can have better endurance.

    I still have sore ribs on my right side from doing this sport.

    Modern sport is in its infancy.
    If we act positively and reward success the bigotry that exists will diminish.
    It may even be the case that mixed sex teem sports become normalised.
    Rugby etc will be the exception, not the rule.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 30th October 2015 @ 1:16 pm

  8. All Blacks win the world cup, over zealous security guard targets a young kid and hits him hard.

    Lets look at this – because its a very good example of the current family court system in action……

    Sonny Bill represents – MEN – a real man, a father, a parent, a role model – he is the protector of children and he reacts accordingly when he sees a child is being harmed in front of him.

    Security guard – represents the over zealous government agencies who are harming kids and who care not about what they are actually doing to families and good parents.

    Why did they NOT get away with this here – because a role model, a parent, a father a real man stepped in and protected the kid, and the security guard was confronted with a stadium full of very pissed off parents who were not happy – so he had to back off and leave him alone.

    The fact that Sonny Bill went even further and gave the kid a memory which will last a life time also just shows the character of a good man / father stepping in an protecting kids – like we all try to do when we see our kids being harmed – , but we as fathers and parents are destroyed by an overly oppressive family court / child support system that targets fathers as the aggressor in every case.

    Someone needs to get Sonny bill signed up as the poster child for the mens/fathers/ parents movement…..

    Comment by hornet — Wed 4th November 2015 @ 1:09 pm

  9. I have to say firstly that I am impressed by the work put into the argument by Deborah.

    Jack Tame: Them’s the breaks of childhood
    Deborah Hill Cone: Let’s go softly, softly with kids

    I played bulrush at school and had a good time. I looked forward to playing. There was even some minor injuries.
    It think there is some aspects of a female perspective verses a males in this discussion.
    Bulrush being something that would attract the male participant more than the female.

    I think Deborah misses the point with trauma.
    EG playground trauma was being bullied on steroids for me. I still can’t work out what I did wrong but the kids in the year above me formed a pack and surrounded me, pushing me to the ground, kicking me, and laughing at me. Now Deborah that’s trauma.

    Facing adversity helps to build character. Treating children like soft toys just creates pansies, and spoiled brats.
    What’s a school without a first aid kit?
    One without any students.
    Or one were they are tied to the chair in case they trip and fall.

    My daughter is nearly 2 but I let her face up to challenges in front of her.
    I within reason stand back, and let her make mistakes.
    She trips and falls.
    The pony has bitten her finger on two occasions.
    But I will let her make the mistake again.

    Bulrush is not violent.
    Rugby in not violent.

    Punching someone in the face is violent.

    If the ABs by Deborah’s perspective have been traumatised by playing the world cup final, why do they feel fantastic?

    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 9th November 2015 @ 11:12 am

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