MENZ ISSUES

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

Understanding Dildo Baggins

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 7:08 am Sat 6th February 2016

Dildo Baggins sounds like a character from a B Grade movie ‘Fellowship of the Dong’ and there’s been some premature speculation that this is another feminist attack on the male integrity of New Zealand.

The name has been attributed to New Zealand MP Steven Joyce, after he was caught on the chin by a flying pink dildo during a political protest at Waitangi. Waitangi, in the province of Northland, the location of the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi (over 170 years ago) has often been the centre of political discord, on what is New Zealand’s national day.

The tribes of Northland, which host the Maori Parliament, have never concluded a settlement of grievances post treaty like most other regions, and some contend that they never ceded sovereignty of the country. The ‘treaty’ in that respect has been a state of siege and a great source of resentment to some Maori.

The contentious issue that plagued the Waitangi celebrations this year, the signing of the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement – a trade treaty which was recorded with equal hostility in some foreign papers as seizure and pillage of 40% of world trade) is viewed by many New Zealander’s with equal suspicion and hostility.

The case in question where the offending woman, Josie Butler, launched said dildo, ‘claimed rape of sovereignty’ not as some might suggest, that the minister was a rapist.

Added to this, is New Zealand Prime Minister John Key’s refusal to attend the Waitangi Celebrations as the Prime Minister normally does, after a war of words over the TPPA. Steven Joyce (often referred to as the Prime Minister’s baggage man and who gets the clean up jobs) went to Waitangi to front a press conference prior to the Waitangi Celebrations. (Given what transpired you can understand the man’s concern about being subject to a gagging order.)

Dildo Baggins (as carrier of the ring/trouble) is one of the best one liners we’ve seen in politics for a long time, and must be a contender for quote of the year (2016).

That’s politics – not a gender attack.

But here’s where we come to the sticking point. How do we treat people who launch any form of political attack?

This woman, was arrested, and later released without charge. It’s unknown at this point whether she received her weapon back, following the assault, on the minister.

But compare this to another recent case where protesters undertook an occupation of the Far North Airport in Kaitaia. One of the men arrested was charged with trespass but refuses to appear in court and is subject to a warrant to arrest.

“A beneficiary with an arrest warrant for criminal matters that hasn’t been cleared 28 days after its issue will get a letter giving 10 working days to clear it. If the warrant is not cleared within 10 working days their payments will be affected.”

This has led to the offender’s superannuation and war pension being suspended and a war veteran is without income.

Eighty-eight-year-old Māori war veteran Selwyn Clarke has been begging for money at Kaitaia markets after his pension was cut just before Christmas.

(Joyce is not the Minister for Social Development)

Was there insistence from the Minister in this case that this woman not be charged – political convenience?
Is this a White Knight situation – that a women not be charged?

Should the Police have upheld the rule of law and charged this woman (who probably also would not have shown up in court) in the same manner they did the man at the Far North airport, and left it to the courts to decide?

Was Josie Butler a beneficiary?

Are these people protestors or criminal offenders?

Is there a harsher standard applied to male political protesters than female political protestors?

Perhaps the question that we should be asking is: Do women have more liberty to protest than men, with the expectation of lessor consequences?

11 Responses to “Understanding Dildo Baggins”

  1. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Sadly downunder you also are making light of an assault on a male. And you are doing so by way of commenting on an existing post by making a new post rather than adding comments to the existing one, for whatever reason.

    Sure, Ms Butler’s justification for throwing the dildo did not mean she alleged Joyce had raped a woman sexually, but when someone is accused of raping that means they are being accused of being a rapist. The silly extension of the term ‘rape’ to refer to behaviour that has nothing to do with rape is an issue worthy of consideration.

  2. Downunder says:

    There is a previous post here, by Ministry of Men’s Affairs which looks at same incident from a different perspective.

    I wouldn’t like to see this in one post, that would be too confusing.

    As a rule, I would agree, we don’t need competing posts. If two posts from the same incident canvas different perspectives or target different audiences, they are complementary not competing, and that should be encouraged as much as comments to any post.

  3. Downunder says:

    The term ‘Rape and Pillage’ does not make every soldier or a whole country rapists.

    It is only fair to look at this in the context in which some people in our country view this.

    That can also be the difference between ‘gender issues’ and men’s issues.

    Sorry if you’ve taken offence.

  4. Colin & Co says:

    What would have been the reaction IF it were a male who had thrown the dildo at a female? I suspect the person would be charged with assault with a weapon by the Police especially if the incident were caught on camera. The feminists would be outraged and crying for the perpetrator to be prosecuted.

    The feminists would also be complaining that the dildo is symbolic of male oppression and female servitude and that by throwing a dildo at the female, the male is trying to belittle and subjugate the victim.

    Double standards is all I can see. The woman who threw the dildo should have been charged especially considering the person she threw the dildo at is an elected member of the NZ Parliament.

    What is next? can we throw anything we like at anyone we choose or are there consequences?

    There are consequences if you are male, this is a double standard that is blindly ignored by media and the NZ Police. I can be assaulted by my ex wife and the Police would decline to prosecute, yet any allegation of assault by my ex wife is rigorously investigated.

    These political correct views are rampant and the male is always the instigator, violator, assaulter until proven otherwise.This is in direct conflict with the bill of rights.

    NZ Police you are a bunch of pussies.

  5. Downunder says:

    Hmmm, so if Judith Collins hadn’t fallen from grace and had gone to Waitangi instead of Joyce, would the woman still have thrown the object at Collins?

    I think it’s only fair to ask, what the object represented?

    To be fair there is a question as to whether a replica penis is actually a dildo, which is a substitute for an erect penis.

    The penis has significant historical perspective.

    Let’s not assume that this woman was a feminist attacking a man, and that she didn’t understand the sovereign defence of preservation of reproductive rights.

    That could be alienating a woman who might be sympathetic to our causes.

  6. too tired says:

    She should be strung up, but another note: In NZ if someone doesn’t make a formal complaint she can’t be charged, if the MP requested for no charge then the Police have their hands tied. But I’m pretty sure the MP, The Police, or a Member of the Public can make the complaint. But does this mean anyone that is offended? Say me when I read it on the news etc?

  7. Downunder says:

    I don’t agree with you on your Police complaint theory.

    The Police can arrest and charge without a complaint – provided they have the required evidence.

    But if the then defendant pleads not guilty the Minister would become a witness.

  8. Downunder says:

    Waitangi 2004

    More mud was thrown, showering the media, police, politicians and Dr Brash at the entrance.

    Dr Brash said those who threw the mud did not understand the issues.

    “I guess it reflects a concern people have. They don’t understand. I would like to have been engaged in constructive conversation with them.

    “Mud throwing is not the way for New Zealand to advance to the future.”

    We’ve advanced, we’ve progressed from mud.

  9. Downunder says:

    This story rises to political farce when John Key stages a Media conference and holds the protestor to account for destroying the country’s image through the international media.

    “It’s appalling” he said.

    But the Media was at fault when the story of the Pony-Pulling Prime minster hit the international circuit?

    Give a dog a bone.

  10. Vman says:

    Once again the definition of rape gets stretched even further. It has become an almost meaningless allegation now thanks to feminists.
    As we know the vast majority of feminists operate on the principle that an allegation of rape against a man equates to being guilty. Hence the Minister is indeed a rapist by feminist logic.

    One other note. You referred to Waitangi Day as New Zealand’s national day. When in fact it is not New Zealand’s national day. Decades of protests have sufficiently alienated the majority of the population from feeling that it is their national day. However that is not a uniquely male issue so I’ll drop the topic.

  11. Downunder says:

    Source:

    Mr Clarke’s veterans pension and disability allowance were suspended in November, after he was issued with an arrest warrant.

    The kaumatua was part of an occupation of Kaitaia Airport last September and was arrested for trespassing.

    The 88-year-old was forced to sell his belongings and beg at Kaitaia markets to survive after his pension was stopped.

    The warrant was dropped this week and Work and Income New Zealand said Mr Clarke’s payments could resume.

    A charitable account was set up last month to help support Mr Clarke, but the veteran has asked for donations to end.

    He said he was deeply grateful to all who supported him, but now that his pension was reinstated he no longer had to rely on their kindness to survive.

    Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu said they were disappointed his pension had not been back paid and WINZ had not yet provided any paperwork.

    Mr Clarke’s agent was working on the paperwork and back pay from WINZ.

Leave a Reply

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