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

Entertaining Stupidity

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 8:47 am Sat 24th June 2017

It was always going to happen, but many people may still scratch their heads and wonder why?

We look around us and see not only the current rabble of destructive youth, but an increasing number of adult female offenders, in particular you might observe, the multi-million dollar fraud club of mischievous-maids. I’m sure they compare notes – “mines bigger than yours”.

Of course this would have nothing to do with the innocent progression of Feminism.

There are many disturbing irrational aspects to their religion, not the least of which is all women are God.

Now, please, don’t entertain me with your stupidity and start on about being an atheist, that’s not what we are talking about.

One of the primary requirements of Feminism is that every woman’s voice is heard. This – has aquirred many interpretations and places many requirements on their fellow men, the least of which is to just acknowledge her opinion [looks sideways, gives a look in the representation of, oh where did you get that from] – behave like a woman and they still don’t get it.

This particular aspect of Feminism has translated into society, with the social demand, that her opinion must be respected, accepted and acted upon, like some divine right.

This is a problem: Acting of the basis of stupidity, too often fuelled by the heat of the moment. To our own detriment, this has gone on, to an unacceptable extent, for at least two decades.

Yes, it’s taken a long time to sink in.

Historically, we have come to expect sensible decisions from our courts and administration, in that the shadow of the law might be all that is required for the majority not to become entangled in it. But alas, through our ongoing tolerance of the stupid, we have advanced stupidity, through the shadow of stupidity. We’ve turned the pyramid upside down, so to speak.

This is not a harsh representation of women, but the reality of the human ability to undermine society by not understanding our own behaviour. By tolerance of destructive forces, regardless of their origins or the gender of their origins, we destabilize what previously existed, and limit our ability to further develop our social progress.

We’re going backwards, regressing, by buying into a religion of stupidity. But of course, men will be to blame for this failure on the basis of not accepting the nature of their new God and the requirement to worship the idle.


  1. The man who is tenacious of purpose in a rightful cause is not shaken from his firm resolve by the frenzy of his fellow citizens clamoring for what is wrong, or by the tyrant’s threatening countenance.

    Worthwhile perhaps, to pause and acknowledge the echo of the voice of Horace.
    (c. 23BC and 13BC)

    Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 24th June 2017 @ 10:03 am

  2. Entertaining stupidity.
    Here we have a lot of it.
    From everyone.
    Basically the women’s done nothing wrong.
    Clearly from the pictures nothing about her or her outfit is offensive.
    So clearly the pool operator is stupid.
    Then the boyfriend.
    Clearly acceptable for him to come to her defence.
    However, sadly, the feminism indoctrination exposes itself.
    “Tori’s furious fiancé, Tyler Newman, took to Facebook to blast how the issue had been handled — labelling it “rape culture”.”
    Rape culture?
    How the hell we got there is beyond me.
    Then there’s the author.
    How stupid does the author thing we have become.
    Not telling us the demographic of those who complained?
    Was it the teenage boys?
    Very much doubt it.
    Neither their fathers.
    If the boys liked what they saw, the fathers would appreciate it to.
    Hell I might be in this misandrist world, be steriotyping.
    Or was it the mothers of those teenage boys?
    Or was it the mothers not liking their husbands looking?
    So many unanswered questions.

    What is it that this feminist propaganda is missing.
    Relying on us to miss.
    So we can’t have an honest conversation.
    Just rape culture propaganda.

    The frontal shot.
    The very noticeable Camel Toe?
    Might have been to provocative to publish.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 24th June 2017 @ 1:11 pm

  3. Rape Culture?
    How the hell we got there is beyond me.

    Something whether real or imagining penetrated the sanctity of this woman’s mind.

    Have a look at the sexual violation of actress Souad Faress.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 24th June 2017 @ 1:58 pm

  4. Perhaps more simply, entered me, and destroyed the image I have of myself?

    Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 24th June 2017 @ 2:29 pm

  5. Leave no woman behind. Make sure the law accommodates each and every one of us.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 24th June 2017 @ 2:33 pm

  6. Thought a good idea to look at this event now before it rapidly evaporates into the back pages.
    So who’s entertaining stupidity, or worse, the legal system.

    Obviously the males demise was somewhat self imposed.
    He’s in a gang, his kids in a gang.
    However she is apparently not labeled?
    She chose to be in a relationship with him.
    So clearly of fine outstanding character.

    The evidence.
    “Things began to escalate and the fight turned physical when Rose was assaulted by the victim.”
    Clearly he’s bad.
    Probably a battered wife.
    “They continued to trade insults back and forth and when Karaitiana stood up and turned towards Rose, she stabbed him in the back with a small pocket knife. Rose fled the house shortly afterwards.”
    None of that makes sense.
    They were having an argument, then he assaults her, then they sit down to continue the conversation?
    How can somebody stand up, turn to face a person then be stabbed in the back?
    By a person who was sitting down!

    Obviously difficult to work things out with so little information.
    So let’s dig deeper.

    “During the fight, Karaitiana seriously assaulted Rose by punching her about the body and head. She was left with a black eye, cuts and bruising to her ribs.

    After the assault, Rose texted a friend and said how much she hated Karaitiana and that if he touched her again, she would stab him.”
    So she didn’t plan to leave him. But planed to kill him.

    “The verbal argument continued to escalate between the pair, as they traded insults back and forth across the kitchen table where they sat.”
    So it was only a verbal argument?
    One were she was as bad as him.
    What? She stabbed him in the back from the other side of the table.

    “The victim saw this and began laughing and said to the defendant ‘bring it on b…..,” the summary of facts said.”
    The victim never said that happened. He died without giving evidence.

    “As he stood up from the table, Rose stabbed him in the upper back on his left side.”
    Wow, the mystery deepens.
    Is she left or right handed?
    Assume she’s right handed.
    He’s facing her, goes to stand up.
    She stabs him.
    What side of the body would she hit?
    His head would stop being hit on the left side?
    So he knew she had a knife and made no attempt to avoid her attack?
    If she snuck up on him what side of the body would she hit?

    “Karaitiana then turned on the defendant and punched her multiple times in the head while threatening to kill her.”
    So did her injuries occur now, or prior to her stabbing him, or both.

    “When Rose was spoken to by police, she admitted she stabbed Karaitiana and had done it as she wanted him to stop hitting and taunting her.”
    Ok clearly the guy was abusive but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that if you get together with a gang member the odds of having the feminists version of a happy, functioning family living in paradise is about the same as Tinkerbell being real.
    It was not self defence.
    They were sitting at the table talking.
    According to her.
    Provocation is not a defence.
    So why no assault with a deadly weapon charge?
    Assault with intent to cause GBH?

    Also he in effect died less the 5 hours after being stabbed, possibly only 3 hours.
    At no point did she or her friend call the police or ambulance to check on him.
    Despite knowing she had delivered a possibly fatal injury.

    8 months home detention.
    “Helen Joyce Rose’s sentence was handed down by Justice Susan Thomas in the High Court in New Plymouth on Friday. ”
    Maybe this case does represent entertaining stupidity.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 30th June 2017 @ 8:34 pm

  7. #6 I didn’t read in the article that there was any evidence or proof that he assaulted her before she stabbed him … other that it’s what she said. Oh wait, I forgot … when a woman says a man hit her it’s obviously true …. they wouldn’t lie about things like that, would they.

    Comment by golfa — Fri 30th June 2017 @ 9:11 pm

  8. You got it right guys!

    Now if only a lot more of them could dish it out to each other then it would only require a cheap body bag instead of $100,000 to keep them in jail. I say give em all a knife and alcohol as its a damn sight cheaper and once less rodent on the planet!

    Comment by Buster — Fri 30th June 2017 @ 11:53 pm

  9. @8 Buster explain to me what this has to do with Menz, other than you showing your true colours and support of violence?

    Comment by martin — Sat 1st July 2017 @ 12:15 pm

  10. Now males listen up.
    I’m single and my wise old mother told me to get my act together and find a man.
    Apparently she’s summed up that I’m a crazy cat lady in disguise.
    Anyway I can find plenty of men for the night but none want to stick around.
    Therefore logic dictates males must now change their behaviour.
    Setting higher standards to suit me… I said me….

    At no point has she described anything she should do to change herself so the guys who come for the night, go this ain’t too bad. I might stick around for seconds.
    My guess is the guys bolt for the door.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 4th July 2017 @ 12:01 pm

  11. What an interesting case.
    There’s some really silly claims being made.
    Thankfully the police seem to have seen through the story for what it is.
    Obviously we are missing all the details but this is telling.
    “She went to make a complaint of rape to police after waking up to find that the boy was having sex with her.”

    She would have dealt with things right there at that moment. Run for help from her partner. Your son was trying to have sex with me.
    That didn’t happen.
    She went too the cops the day after, after everybody went what the hell, you had sex with him.

    “He said the police did not even send off a rape kit, and it was not good enough.”
    Well thats interesting.
    If the rape kit showed sperm it would have shown if her story was true or not.
    No sperm, she woke and stopped him.
    Sperm, she woke and let him finish or she is lying
    Rape kits are for getting DNA of unknown offenders or proving or excluding a person denying sex took place.
    That did not happen in this case. Her accused admitted sex took place.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 6th July 2017 @ 7:38 pm

  12. 11, DJ, I wonder if, say the woman is found guilty of sex with a minor, how much would be added to her sentence for accusing the boy of a crime that he might have served 20 years for if her lies had been believed,

    whats your guess?

    This would of course be after the court is reminded that women only tell lies after being subjected to previous male abuse etc. She must be the victim of something that some man has done- surely in her childhood, school camp, prom night? Lets find this bastard.
    And then, lest we forget her lesbian relationship has failed as a result.
    LGQBT, someone call CSI !

    Perhaps you’re still stunned from your wee three year olds tough day at pre-school, because you didnt note the GREATER crime that whoever wrote this article commited, THERE IS NO- follow through..

    If you are a woman in a vulnerable situation dial 111….push the button in the top corner should you wish to hide your visit…..

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Thu 6th July 2017 @ 10:59 pm

  13. DJ Ward @10: Thanks for this story. It highlights the extent to which women assume the right to control households regardless of what suits their men. Hence most family homes contain furniture and layout according to the woman’s preference and there is little in them, except the garage and garden shed, that reflects the man’s preferences. He is only there to provide money and labour as necessary to enable the woman to have things as she prefers. Only the homes (and lifestyles) of bachelors tend to be arranged to suit the men who live there.

    This throws an interesting light on the feminist obsession with ‘power dynamics’ and ‘power and control’ which they incorrectly cite to blame men for all domestic violence and which they speak about, when men try to exercise any power over their environment, as if that’s domestic violence in itself. In fact, women feel threatened if they cannot maintain a high level of power over their families and homes. Ms Norling’s patronizing article exemplifies this.

    Another example is women’s tendency to seize the children following marital separation and to proceed on the assumption that they should be the primary parent and exercise control over the father’s contact and role. That is after all the real story in the majority of cases, and continues to be supported to some extent by our Family Courts.

    The ‘patriarchal power and control’ model appears to be a way to distract us from the real quest for power in households and families.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 7th July 2017 @ 8:47 am

  14. DJ Ward @11: Assuming that the Crown is correct and the woman has sought to blame a 14yo boy for her sexual exploitation of him, that is a moral wrong of a very high category. We await with interest what sentence is handed down to this lesbian. We can expect a pussy pass of impressive magnitude.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 7th July 2017 @ 8:53 am

  15. #11
    Well the jury made their decision.
    Not guilty.
    Not surprised as it seems to be a he said, she said case.
    She intends to sue for costs as the police made terrible mistakes?
    How many wrongly or falsely accused men have been allowed to do that?
    The “this will stop women rape victims coming forward” story has just begun.

    Back in the real world.
    One women.
    15 male victims.
    That’s 15 males falsely accused of rape.
    One served 2 years prison.
    She got paid $20,000 as well.
    In that case she said.
    Beale, who had said in a victim impact statement “I feel that any sentence he receives will never reflect the life sentence that he gave me”
    She was probably educated by women’s refuge or similar.
    “Beale even injured herself to back up her claims that she had been assaulted with barbed wire.”

    One of her victims saw the writing on the wall.
    “Mr Shazad skipped bail and fled the country after being charged with sexual assault.”
    If caught that would have been the nail in the coffin for him.
    Fled because he was guilty.

    “Not only that, but she then went on to give false testimony at court, which resulted in the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of a completely innocent man.”
    Now I wonder if it was one of those new modern trials were the “victim” was shielded from view.
    Protecting her from facing her vile attacker.
    And probably the jury too.
    Let’s just say that of all the potential rape victims a rapist has it is possible a rapist would target her.
    However 15 rapists chose her as a victim in such a short space in time?
    Proof that Lesbians who hate men enough to do this believe in Unicorns too.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 7th July 2017 @ 9:53 pm

  16. #11,
    This case leaves me with many questions.

    The lesbian was charged with three charges of sex with a minor wasn’t it?

    Doesn’t that mean that three sex crimes took place?

    If the woman was not guilty of the charges, then three charges of sexual assault or rape would be the only possible alternative conclusion as the boy and the woman admitted the sex took place?

    Will the boy be charged?

    If not, why not?

    What if the boy is found not guilty?

    Can the woman be retried? / Do we have double jeopardy laws here?

    What if the woman’s claims had been believed and the boy had been charged initially, but was found to be not guilty, could he have sued the police?

    Would she have then been charged?

    Comment by voices back from the bush — Sat 8th July 2017 @ 7:41 am

  17. Clearly not the best actress and obviously very stupid
    All this just to get revenge on her partner who decided he wanted a divorce.
    Hell has no fury like a women scorned.
    She should have waited for Donald to become President.
    The judiciary might have let her off.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 22nd July 2017 @ 7:05 pm

  18. Finally people collectively deciding not to entertain stupidity.
    Who would have thought the claim of abuse would take so long.
    I thought it was compulsory in explaining female offending.
    Greed is of course never a motive for females.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 31st July 2017 @ 8:28 pm

  19. Here we have our Supreme Court entertaining stupidity.
    All 5 agreed to not guilty so how did everybody else get it so wrong.

    The off duty officer got it wrong.
    The attending officers got it wrong.
    The original prosecuter got it wrong.
    The original Judge got it wrong.
    The Jury got it wrong.
    The Judges in the court of appeal got it wrong.

    The issue is a moral one versus a legal one.
    People view his morals as wrong so assessed the law to suit or protect their own moral standard.
    The prosecution even stated that the Jury sets the standard. (That’s set after the offence so watch out in 10 years as the goal posts get shifted and you find out your a monster)

    The Supreme Court ignored emotion.
    They applied the Law.
    He, as he said from the beginning, never broke the law.

    They still got him.
    They dragged him from courthouse to courthouse.
    Subjected to an intimate examination of everything about him by the Jury.
    His legal fees must be huge (who’s paying)
    They published his image countless times.
    They confiscated his property.

    Although the word dodgy is relevant for this man.
    I congratulate him.
    In fighting for himself.
    He fought for everybody’s freedom.
    If his conviction stood, legal precedent would have been created.
    We could be arrested for innocent photo taking next.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 21st June 2018 @ 7:42 pm

  20. Yes, thanks for this one DJ Ward. We are all being photographed all the time through surveillance and our images are now processed by facial recognition software, all without our consent and often without our specific knowledge except insofar as we choose to be in the places where surveillance photography is or may be taking place. Who knows the motivations, attitudes and thoughts of those viewing our images?

    There is no law against photographing people except in situations where they can reasonably expect privacy. We all have the same legal rights as journalists to take photographs in public situations, although journalists can have more rights to photograph in controlled or privately owned contexts.

    The photography and continued publication thereof showing this man standing in Court or walking out of Court compounds the harm done to him through wrongful prosecution and conviction, yet even this is allowed.

    The witch hunt against males is in full swing and if a (gasp) man harmlessly and legally photographs (gasp) girls on the beach he should be burned at the stake.

    There may be a case for making it illegal to photograph unknown children in public situations. However, any such law would need to apply equally to men, women, journalists, councils and police to avoid it becoming yet another anti-male discriminatory law. The broader philosophical implications would need to be considered such as those associated with removing yet another freedom, further increasing interpersonal distrust and vigilance and reducing social cohesion, expanding the importance of subjective offendedness and basing laws on assumptions about people’s thinking and motivation rather than any actual harm.

    This case raises similar considerations to those in recent debates on MENZ about sexual relationships between older and much younger people above the age of consent. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries have all jumped to moral judgement, confused morality with legality and thereby failed to respect the rights of this man to act in ways he is legally entitled to act. The consequences of us jumping on such moral bandwagons can be serious, as shown by what happened to this man.

    It’s worth remembering the violence done by the state to this man behind the scenes. Police will have trampled through his residence on a fishing expedition, inspected his personal letters and texts, seized his computers, phones etc for forensic prying, and spoken to his neighbours and friends conveying the idea he is probably a dangerous rapist.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 22nd June 2018 @ 11:40 am

  21. Socially destructive females cannot be tolerated within the financial system yet the same destructive behaviour if it is against one man is acceptable, tolerated, and worse supporting by Justice.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 19th July 2018 @ 4:13 pm

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