Recent Cases Show Feminist Ideology is Unsafe
Recent cases highlight the danger our society, or at least the male half, faces under current approaches to violence. The case of Shona Maiden was one. She gave her false account of events to police and even went to news media with photos of her son cuddling her and appeared on tv with convincing tears giving the same account, that a man had punched her after she told him to f-off when he criticized her for speaking te reo. News media misrepresented even her account by claiming he assaulted her for speaking te reo, and generally took a white-knight approach in support of this abused damsel (see the MENZ Issues post ‘What Scumbag Would Do This?’). She said on public media that she had lost 5 teeth and had a plate in her mouth cracked, but she wrote on her Facebook page about 3 teeth on one occasion and 2 teeth on another and not about a cracked plate. After she was charged on the basis of the CCTV evidence she told news interviewers that she stood by her account and had told the truth!
The point here is that Shona Maiden believed herself to be a blameless victim of a male’s violence. She believed it so fully that she told the whole country through news media and she still appeared to believe it even after the CCTV evidence proved otherwise.
In London, Souad Faress claimed that as a man walked past her in a crowded underground rail station he sexually violated her by putting his fingers into her vagina as well as shoulder-pushing her. He was prosecuted and went to trial despite the CCTV evidence showing nothing of the sort happened or could possibly have happened. It’s unclear whether Ms Faress actually ever believed her account but she persisted with it right through to the inevitable acquittal at trial.
So we see it’s easy for people to make up allegations, confident that prevailing attitudes will gullibly jump to their support. In the case of sexual allegations, women know that no corroborating evidence at all will be necessary to obtain a conviction (that’s not to say that a high rate of cases result in conviction). And it’s easy for a person, having made up an account, to come to believe the account is true or true enough to keep asserting it. This is the reality, but our police and Courts and indeed public don’t seem to want to face this reality or maintain protections against it.
In both of the cases described above, if there had been no CCTV evidence the women would very likely have been believed and there was a good chance the men accused would have been convicted and punished, probably with significant prison terms and associated damage to their reputations and lives. Even if acquitted, many in the public would have treated them as guilty but able to afford a clever lawyer. If these women’s claims had been made in a Family Court dispute they would almost certainly have been ruled to be truthful ‘on the balance of probabilities’, double-speak for ‘whatever the judge thinks based on extensive indoctrination by women’s groups, beliefs about gender rates of violence and an assumption that women wouldn’t lie about such matters’.
The sad fact is that most of us won’t have CCTV footage to protect us against false allegations. The moral of the story is: if you can, set up CCTV at home and carry and use mobile phone video recording for incidents elsewhere or encourage onlookers to do so. The moral of the story for our government and Courts is: ‘stop stereotyping men and stop giving undue credibility to women’s allegations and feminist claims generally’.
Nothing new here. Crown prosecutors still claim women are victims after their allegations are proven false. Little wonder our prisons are overcrowded. It is the Criminal [In]justice System at the root of the problem and successive Ministers refusal to introduce an inquisitorial system and a criminal cases review commission that allows this problem to continue unabated.
Comment by Jon — Fri 26th February 2016 @ 12:36 pm
Jon (#1): How exactly might an inquisitorial system improve justice? Previous safeguards against wrongful conviction in the adversarial system worked ok, but the problem is largely that many such safeguards have been abandoned under feminist lobbying. For example, in the past if there was no evidence other than an accusation the case was most unlikely to proceed beyond depositions, while now for sexual allegations and domestic violence allegations cases are allowed to proceed with nothing but an allegation.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 26th February 2016 @ 2:54 pm
is there any point in commenting? nothing will change, you can send a man to jail on the heresay alone of a jealous vindictive woman.Why dont men have a voice strong enough to be heard ? It wont be till a prominent figure in society is thrown in the media spotlight,then perhaps something will be done,but i doubt it .
Comment by Mike holliday — Sat 27th February 2016 @ 4:09 am
Women lie, lie a lot even to themselves.
they have a lose grip on reality.
It’s why it’s easy for them to lie, and to even believe there own lies.
It’s female nature baby.
https://youtu.be/Gbb03SnhHOM
Comment by mantrol — Sat 27th February 2016 @ 6:12 am
Sorry, but I’d have to beg to differ with the general consensus in the responses. Not speaking from a feminist platform and obviously not negating the facts of the aforementioned case where something terrible came of that situation. However, personally speaking as a mother who’s been on the other side… “The side that a lot of the men here are chiming in on” I have to share how I have actually had the exact opposit happen. There was no compassion toward me being a female not a baby momma, nor a woman- when I was falsely accused of assaulting my child father. There was no bias toward me for any reason. I was assaulted twice and neither time, did the law or police or court side with me. In the last case, I was actually accused of assaulting him while defending myself. I was also lied on about the circumstances as well as taken to court, and charges were brought against me. It took 3 years to fight the case before Brady evidence cleared me- in which, even then the district attorney and accuser didn’t want to drop the charge. They ultimately had to. I had video and evidence- no one gave one concern. They were determined to see me in jail. Consequently, I was held guilty until proven innocent and lost my child to custody of his father. Even tho the case has been dismissed, I still do not have my son back. He was taken at 2.5 abruptly and placed in an environment he’d never been in. No one in texas courts cared anything about the father lying.
Comment by Niedria — Sat 27th February 2016 @ 1:28 pm
Recent cases highlight the danger our society faces, or at least the male half face, under current approaches to violence.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 28th February 2016 @ 6:27 pm
Downunder (#6): Quite unnecessary grammatical alteration because the meaning was clear and the original was at least as grammatically correct as your altered version and probably more correct. Your version didn’t read any better either. We’re not sure what your motivation was to critique our grammar though we have some theories.
Some nouns (e.g. group, company, jury) can be either singular or plural depending on whether the sentence refers to the whole group in unison or to the individuals acting or experiencing in various different ways. For example ‘team’ is plural in “The team returned to their homes”, but singular in “The team was informed which side of the field it would defend for the first half of the game”.
“The team now faces a danger of relegation” is also singular and this example is analogous to our sentence above.
In the sentence you altered the members of the male half of society were no more doing or experiencing different individual things than were the members of the whole society. There was no reason to treat ‘the male half’ as plural. However, had you written it yourself in a post we wouldn’t quibble with your version.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 28th February 2016 @ 11:08 pm
I am not quibbling over grammar and I do have concerns about what you said.
I said something different.
I would encourage you to reply to the comment and not attack me based on your theories.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 29th February 2016 @ 6:31 am
Downunder, I read your comment several times without being able to grasp the point you were trying to make.
Can you please explain why your construction is different and what your concerns are, for those of us slow on the uptake?
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 29th February 2016 @ 8:00 am
In the first construction the suggestion is, this is an either/or situation, that faces danger.
In the second construction the suggestion is, if not this then that, situation faces danger.
Society relies on interdependence.
It is not sensible to suggest that men alone being endangered does not have a social consequence, which is often the way we write on this site.
Yes, it is a Men’s Site, but not to the extent that we write ourselves out of that equation.
Not everyone has a comprehensive understanding of English, but we all have an innate ability to take meaning from what is written, rather than what was intended by the writer.
(Oh, I see what he means. I think he is saying this.) Is not the way most people analyse a sentence.
We usually, not always, sort this out in face to face conversations, but not so in written exchanges.
In terms of communicating a message, it is imperative, that we write what we mean, because of the way people read.
The greater majority of people read innately, not comprehensively.
I would be the first to admit that I have been as guilty of this as any other writer here.
I would also suggest that many people (men more so than women) switch off when trying to read this site. They come here for a reason but quickly find the language gives them a headache. They have varying abilities to process data.
It is not what we write but the way we write that is more important in communicating our message.
So, when I read that first sentence it hits me like a softball bat. It’s wrong. I know it’s wrong. I’m reading innately. Why is it wrong? Then I have to read comprehensively to figure that out.
This situation also deters other writers, especially men, and that is not what we should be doing, unless we wish to be lone protestors.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 29th February 2016 @ 9:17 am
Just looked in and that is an old, but too common a story type. I note that the energy turned to a petty point between “Downunder” and “Ministry of Men’s affairs”. The job is too important to expend energy so frivolously.
But I found a great clip on YouTube, and I hope to share it with you all – and maybe it can lift everyone up just a bit.
Take a look….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_tCVSJ_6ko
Comment by Joining the dots — Mon 29th February 2016 @ 12:05 pm
Thanks for the link to the video, “Joining the dots”
Same message, different medium.
People who like joining dots read crime novels but people who seek answers need a message written in their language and it is the responsibility of the writer to connect with their audience.
Petty point? You obviously missed the point, but once again, thanks for THE VIDEO.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 29th February 2016 @ 8:04 pm
Downunder (#10): We can’t follow your reasoning but we don’t think that’s because we’re dull.
No it wasn’t an either/or situation, because of the words ‘at least’. It was an either or both situation.
There is no such suggestion that we can see. The second construction ‘suggests’ nothing different from the first in our opinion.
We suggested nothing of the sort.
Nobody has done so in this thread, and I don’t recall that being done in other threads. What does it actually mean? (It probably won’t help if you try to explain it further.)
Whatever meaning you took seemed to bear little relationship to what was actually written, and your innate ability may be misleading you.
Can you refer to the relevant research about this? Actually, nobody reads innately. Reading is taught and learned. Referring to a concept of ‘innate reading’ seems like an attempt to justify misinterpretation and/or some need to find fault with or superiority over another’s work.
Well sorry, but we have been having a lot of difficulty understanding your messages lately. We doubt this is due to the way you write.
There was nothing wrong with it. The reason you found it to be wrong may have more to do with your own need to find it wrong than with what was written.
What ‘situation’ deters other writers? And what evidence do you have that you know better how not to deter other writers? These are now rhetorical questions. We don’t accept for a minute that your slightly rewritten version of our sentence will be any more or less likely to deter anyone.
We are sorry to waste time dealing with this but we didn’t start this and we’re not prepared to remain silent when we disagree.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 29th February 2016 @ 10:31 pm
I was sad to see the cause getting hung up on such a trivial petty issue, and it taking so much energy better spent in other ways.
As for crime novels, this particular dot-joiner has never read one. So can’t imagine where that came from.
Comment by Joining the dots — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 4:04 am
Joining the dots : If you are sad and confused, have a listen to the section of Paul Elam’s video between 3.30 and 4.00 and you may come to realise that if I am ‘getting hung up on such a trivial petty issue’ so is Paul Elam.
Paul Elam is making an appeal to Women. A very well thought through dialogue, for an specific audience. He doesn’t discuss any issue in great depth. He has a great one liner in there – they won’t let our boys play ball.
What you’re not seeing is this:
Paul Elam says, “Here is a mirror for you to look in.” Women, if you stop and look you will see this is what you are doing.
He’s not talking to Feminists, and very little about how active radical feminists achieve their goals, more so the visible consequences. At least Elam understands the depth of the issue, and I quote: “Say, think, and feel.”
When you delve into the mechanics of what and how the men’s situation evolved and is manipulated you don’t necessarily join the dots between cause and effect.
Not understanding this – yes, totally agree – that is a bloody big waste of energy.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 7:49 am
Has the PM mistaken himself for the flag.
Here is an opinion piece currently up on the RNZ site. It is outside of their routine editorial standards.
A factually incorrect, badly constructed, jumbled mess, that the writer may feel good about, but you try reading this and making sense of it – and it was ‘a man’ that wrote it.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 8:02 am
Ministry of Men’s Affairs
You can make it mean that if you want to. That suits your argument. That is one of the primary tactics of Feminists – on this occasion, right or wrong, it means this, because that is what I want it to mean.
That is not writing, that is justification.
Let’s go back to the Paul Edam video, where he points out the same thing.
“They gave it a name – they called it the Patriarchy.”
I may be inclined to point out that you’re missing part of your legs, but I’m not the one cutting myself off at the knees.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 9:34 am
Still adversarial towards the ones who are on your team.
As for “energy better spent”, there are a lot of deserving causes today. Examples:-
The case of that 44yr old teacher aide convicted of having sex at her home with a 14yr old male student. Take a look at her current situation, and yes they are discussing home detention. I reckon energy directed at that might be more helpful.
Or that female who admits to telling lies to her toddler son.
Kids are not stupid, and so how can they trust their parent? Is a parent liar fit to raise children? etc.
There is much more interesting ground than I see here. If this consumes your efforts, how can you progress the cause that supposedly motivates you. Good luck….
Comment by Joining the dots — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 11:59 am
Interesting conflict you raise there.
Would you like to express this further in a post?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 1:44 pm
Joining the dots (#14 & 18): Yes you’re correct but rest assured we direct a lot of time and energy towards important matters such as preparing media releases, submissions etc to select committees and parliamentarians,supporting individual men, meeting with other activists, attending protests and of course preparing news and opinion pieces for posting here and elsewhere. We’re guessing you direct your energy similarly towards such activities, given your sadness about our waste of a small amount of time towards challenging strange, unintelligible contrariness from another poster. You’re right that it’s better not to rise foolishly to the bait and we shall endeavour to remember this in future.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 6:49 pm
We regret the recent deterioration here at MENZ Issues. It’s a shame that it can so easily be dominated by one poster and filled with mostly worthless content.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 6:56 pm
Reply to Downunder. I cannot initiate a post on MENZ. I do pass by occasionally and look in. I have not noticed any of the other activism which Ministry-of-men’s mentions.
But about lies. I believe that every casualty of the gender bias and the courts are victims of lies. There may also be truths, but lies are in there to defeat truth and to cause pain and injustice. So on what basis is it okay to start one’s kids on the training slopes of telling and receiving lies? Might they grow up thinking it is legitimate to tell lies? I know it can be argued that this lying teaches kids the sense to detect lies being told to them, but our ordeals show us that there are also much worse spin-offs from it too. In my view, parents should always strive to build a rock solid bond with their kids, where kids can always have confidence in their parents and vice-versa.
Families need to be strong. But I’m stunned that any parent would admit to lying in an item they posted on national news. Doesn’t that show they are almost proud of it, and maybe even recommending it to others. Oh I imagine how different life would be had we not had liars involved.
Comment by Joining the dots — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 7:35 pm
Joining the dots, you can initiate a post here, you just need to log in. If you have forgotten your password, just click the “lost password” link and instructions will be emailed to you.
Comment by JohnPotter — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 7:44 pm
Joining the dots (#22): The fact you may not have noticed is immaterial and we’re not sure what you are implying. You don’t have to dig very deep into previous posts to find information pertaining to the activism we speak of. Another example was a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority the result of which we will disclose soon. However, you are unlikely to find much evidence of those useful activities on the part of ‘Downunder’. How about your own finely directed energy, can you inform us about the activities it has involved?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 8:20 pm
I think the black ribbon campaign is a good one.
I’ve been reading posts and I’m quite impressed by ministry of Mens affairs involvement on men’z/men’s issues.
, I’m hopeful.
I’d like to see them supported by NZers.
I’d like to see them expose to New Zealand the obstacles NZ men face and the reality of our just-us system.
Sometimes Ive thought they over focus on media issues however but I realise that’s way it must be done.
Comment by voices back from the bush — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 9:16 pm
Do you have a secret-weapon you want to tell us about?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 9:34 pm
Thanks ‘voices back from the bush’, some supportive communication here is appreciated.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 1st March 2016 @ 9:47 pm