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

So.. Women Should Not Be Punished For Breaking The Law?

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 8:50 am Fri 1st April 2016

In our opinion NZ media spend far too much time on the US ‘primaries’ (that many media incorrectly refer to as ‘the presidential race’). We guess it’s cheap and NZ media have lucked in when it comes to Donald Trump because he can be quite entertaining.

The Trump issue that arose yesterday highlighted some frightening trends. Trump expressed his opinion that if abortion were to be made illegal then women who procure abortions should be punished. This apparently was so unacceptable to women that he soon recanted and decided that only the abortionist should be punished. That is the first frightening thing, that feminism can stifle reasoning and opinion so readily that even the chest-beating Donald Trump is humbled. (Probably not a good move for Trump either, to be seen as so spineless and unauthentic…)

Women make up 53% of US voters so politicians can’t afford to say too much that would turn them off. But really, if most women would be turned off by the idea that women should be punished for breaking the law, we see how unequal and dangerous feminism truly is.

The abortion debate per se is largely irrelevant here. That debate will contribute to decisions about legal restrictions on abortion. The issue here is that women want the right because they are women to be able to break a law once enacted.

The argument appears to be that a woman wants an abortion so much she shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions in procuring one. Only the person doing the abortion should be held responsible.

Abortion cannot be compared to drug addiction in which a pusher, sometimes forcibly or surreptitiously, encourages addiction to a drug. There is some justification there to punish the pusher but not the addict, or to punish the pusher more.

When it comes to prostitution the feminists really show their duplicity. They have long called for customers to be punished but not the prostitutes. Prostitution is comparable to drug addiction, the prostitutes being skilled at tempting customers and doing things that provide such powerful pleasure responses that it’s not unusual for men to behave as addicts, turning to prostitutes either regularly or from time to time as a response to elevated life stress. Unlike prostitutes, the people performing abortions generally don’t flaunt themselves to tempt customers and don’t appear to promote abortion in any way. It’s the customers who press for their services. Yet for abortion the feminists don’t want the customers to be punished because they are female, while for prostitution they want the male customers to be punished because they are male but not the sex pushers because they are female.

This kind of stuff emphasizes that nations kowtowing to feminist demands are doomed to fall under corruption and civil unrest.


  1. If you catch the flu you would like to take medication to eradicate the symptoms. If you get a bacterial or other parasitic infection you would like to be able to eradicate the infection with medical treatment.

    If the Government passed a law making it illegal to treat the infection or flu because the parasite was a “protected species”. Wouldn’t that just be wrong ?

    An embryo is incapable of life without the host. It provides risk and inconvenience to the host. The host should be allowed to remove the parasite.

    Comment by prouddad — Fri 1st April 2016 @ 1:09 pm

  2. prouddad (#1): You are debating the broader issue of what if any laws a country chooses to make concerning abortion, but this is irrelevant to the post.

    However, your analogy of a bacterial or parasitic infection is a poor one that ignores the much more complex issues when it comes to abortion. For one thing, parasites don’t involve a human father’s genetic contribution.

    One could equally use an analogy of vermin for children who, like unwanted rats cause inconvenience, demands on household food supplies, risk of infection unless constant cleaning takes place, disturbing the sleep of the parent and so forth. So why don’t we just allow parents to kill off inconvenient children?

    It’s up to us to decide at what stage we provide any protection for a developing human being. Being in a woman’s womb doesn’t necessarily mean that the developing human deserves no protection or less protection than when in a woman’s bassinet, cot or house. Indeed, most legal systems provide some protection for a foetus beyond a particular stage of development.

    The point of this post was that, having decided on the laws around abortion why should a society not punish women who break those laws? Why should women expect such special treatment when it comes to breaking a law? The amazing thing here is that so many people readily accept this notion.

    Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 2nd April 2016 @ 12:38 pm

  3. sarcasm prouddad??

    If a Woman does something or gets something done that’s illegal then of course she should be bloody well punished!!

    I can’t for the life of me understand why what Trump said is such a big deal.

    The thing is i was talking to some ladies and they all thought that Trump wanted to punish women who get an abortion but did’t realise that he was talking about illegal abortion.

    It should illegal for the media to misinform the public and the should be punished!!

    The only reason this has been blown out of proportion it that Trump said that women should be punished.

    Are women above the law or just over sized children that can’t control their womb’s?

    The thing thats stupid about abortion is that when there’s been a miscarriage everyone’s sad for your loss and unset but abortions are sweet as.

    Comment by mantrol — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 7:18 am

  4. This article is blatant misreporting by the media. The woman can be seen pushing and striking the man while he is walking away but she is the “victim” in the article.

    Comment by prouddad — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 1:43 pm

  5. CCTV footage of the incident shows Ms Smith following the driver to his door, where she was hit with the jaw-breaking blow.

    Am I watching the same video as Kamilia Palu? Because I can see her shoving and striking the man before she got struck.
    In New Zealand that and I am sure in the UK that is assault. The punch that the man threw was within less than a second of him being struck – which is self defense. She pushed and struck him immediately prior.
    While the resulting injuries to her are unfortunate. The video shows that 49-year-old Heather Smith got injured while committing a crime.

    Comment by prouddad — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 2:07 pm

  6. prouddad (#4): Quite right, well spotted. She pushed him and tried to hit him in the face and he appeared to hit her in immediate response.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 2:07 pm

  7. Re post 2 & 3

    Abortion is a much larger and complex ethical issue. When a woman gets pregnant while getting raped then the pregnancy is not much different to catching an unwanted virus.

    Similarly where birth control fails the initial agreed position is that neither party planned a child.

    If the agreed outcome was not getting pregnant then isn’t the fact that it is human DNA irrelevant ?

    There is an element of consent involved – just like the act of having sex. If it is consensual and wanted then it is a happy outcome. If a pregnancy is wanted then a miscarriage is going to be sad.

    If it is not consensual or unwanted hen it is not a happy outcome. If a pregnancy is no wanted and aborted it will still be a little bit sad but the outcome is acceptable.

    I think the abortion debate is not a good issue to raise mens rights with because the issue is complex and the mens rights message will just get lost in the wider issue. Just like the feminist movement often takes their message too far – it does more harm than good.

    Comment by prouddad — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 2:25 pm

  8. Re Post 6.

    Yes – she is blatantly assaulting the man while he has his back turned to her. It article is very biased and completely misses out the fact that he hit in self defense. The punch was in less than a second after he was struck. The fact that she first shoved him and then punched him shows that her punch wasn’t n isolated action but that she was being violent towards him and may have posed a further threat.

    Comment by prouddad — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 2:31 pm

  9. #5 @Prouddad Haven’t you been keeping up? The entitled sex can do whatever they want and never expect repercussions; be it legal or otherwise! Haven’t you heard yet; it’s never okay to hit a woman? She can do whatever she wants but you, as a male have zero options; just suck it up. Take that case to court and it’s your fault because you provoked her. You can’t use provocation as a defense but she can use it as a justification.

    I thought feminism was about equality – you know if she dishes it out then …. Some woman take their hard earned equality too far and some men have just had enough.

    Comment by Bruce S — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 2:34 pm


    Comment by prouddad — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 2:37 pm

  11. After being attacked violently by a woman almost two years ago I still spend time coming to terms with her actions and actions of police.
    It made me change my mind about a few things I thought I was quite sure about.
    Eg. Sitting alone in a cell for days made me rethink my views on incarceration and I concluded that solitary confinement was unlikely to rectify anything infact its no more than a recipe to create insanity or madness.
    Also I changed my view on euthenasia and suicide as I realised there are things that are worse than death and injustice for many of us is one of those things.
    I didnt retaliate with violence not even in any way that could be misconstrued as violence as seems to be the way these days, I just took it and then removed myeslf from the room.
    As a result I spent days in a cell anyway, lost my posessions, was made homeless and had to find thousands of dollars for a lawyer as I was assured no man can defend himself. Ironic eh.
    The alledged crime of male assaults female hang like a noose around my neck for nine months until police finally admitted no evidence in court.
    then I was free to go, not declared innocent or even not guilty but “unproven” remains the outcome.
    My views on violence towards females, like most men isn’t something i’d really considered. I had held the view that if I ever reacted with violence towards a woman even when I was attacked by one -that I would bring a deep shame upon myself and a guilt that I was happy never to know about.
    Today 23 months later, I realise if I had defended myself I would’ve had it so much easier.
    I would have just pleaded guilty and gone to court straight away.
    It would have cost me virtually nothing perhaps a fine and then if I’d played nice during a stopping violence mindwash I would’ve had the whole thing exponged from my clean record and for all required purposes been free to continue life unhindered. All sins forgiven.
    I discovered our just-us system doesnt allow men to be not guilty.
    I don’t regret that I didn’t react with violence for many reasons and also I have taken responsibility for the fact that I allowed myself to be in that situation prone to abuse which I will now be more cautious to avoid. but I now find I’m greatly at odds the the white ribbon campaign.
    Im not advocating violence but I feel diferently about violence towards women after my experience and surmise that If I am ever seriously assaulted by a female again I might choose to hit her back.And hit her back hard enough that she will not continue with her assault.
    While feminists reading this would presume that I am a bad person for speaking in such a way. My point is not to suggest that we use violence to fix situations but that because our domestic violence laws etc dont recognise violence from females or males as victims, violence against males and females WILL increase.

    Comment by voices back from the bush — Sun 3rd April 2016 @ 5:17 pm

  12. Monument, Plaque etc. The grassy Knoll is No 8 Ratanui street. It is privately owned. Council will not provide the details of the owner over the phone, but would provide this info to a person applying at the local Council service centre. Is there anyone living locally who would volunteer to find out the land owner?
    (The Council would NO SAY in anything erected here, nor would the Court.)
    Does anyone have any ideas of what might be appropriate for here, to commemorate Jim’s work?

    Comment by John Brett — Tue 5th April 2016 @ 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