17 Comments »

1. 

   This is your action news reporter, at the scene, with a man from the job.

   “Excuse me, Sir. Can you tell me how you got the job?”

   “Well it was like this. I just got out of jail, and I was down at WINZ, waiting for the appointment, so I could get some money the next week, when this old crippled dude sits down next to me.

   “And can you tell me what happened then, Sir.”

   “He shows me the job they texted him, and I’m like, bro, do you think they’ll pay you if you do it in your dreams at night? So, he texted it to me, and I rung up about it straight away.”

   “And that’s how you got the job, Sir.”

   “Yeah, that’s how I got the job. Muse be my shout, eh.”

   Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 11:40 am

2. 

   Well it’s so rare it’s newsworthy.
   This case, not mentioned in the article started when, can you guess?
   She used the Australian courts to try and prevent him seeing his kids.
   I think he gave Australia the middle finger.

   What a fantastic quote.
   ‘At the end of the day if the dog is barking you just close the door’

   “Sally Faulkner’s former husband says Lahela and Noah will never return to Australia”
   What a bunch of idiots, of course he won’t bring them to Australia.
   If he did that he would never see his kids again.
   At the end of the day this case revolved around one parent considering children to be their possession. The other parent acted in complete contempt of that belief.
   If the starting point was 50:50 shared care would this have happened?

   He is called the child snatch dad.
   Be she did the child snatch/abduction attempt.

   http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/at-the-end-of-the-day-if-the-dog-is-barking-you-just-close-the-door/news-story/09ae0efe5b04e017b9f2c8d9e087593d

   Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 6:25 pm

3. 

   I think the sticking point with shared parenting is that it’s the children that move between houses and not the parents.

   Comment by Downunder — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 8:22 pm

4. 

   It says. How not to propose: Fiancé slammed for proposing with ‘small, $2.14K ring

   Some of the details.
   The women is ‘furious’
   He nearly earns 6 figures despite the headline saying he does.
   He is usually very generous. That sounds like a big win for her.
   Mrs. snoopy has seen the receipt.
   It’s a lot less than she ‘imagined’
   She doesn’t tell us her income?
   Is she worthy if his generosity is how she makes a living now?
   He got advice. “Someone at work apparently told him that ‘if she makes it all about the ring, then she’s not the girl for you’.

   “Ideally I would have loved for us to have chosen a ring together and made a special day finding one we both liked.”
   I can imagine the pouting lips and fluttering eyes just before he blows $10 grand.

   The chances of him getting it back in 2 years when the relationship ends will be slim to none so why waste money on an obsenly priced piece of fake glass (diamond). She will also probably loose it when it drops out of her pocket on a tinder hookup or something similar.

   So here we have a part of the matriarchy. A relatively new idea imposed on males requiring them to spend large sums on completely pointless things to prove their apparent worthiness to women.

   http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/furious-woman-slams-her-fiance-for-proposing-with-a-small-2k-ring-when-he-earns-six-figures/news-story/02cd118af164ba8705a0772ea82f1150

   Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 16th August 2017 @ 7:55 pm

5. 

   The domestic violence propaganda machine is at work agian.
   The author is Liz Burke. Not sure of the persons gender.
   Got a go to DV video at the start. Mostly about women with a tiny bit about male victims at the end.

   But here is the propaganda, lie, and bigotry.
   “AUSTRALIA’S Chief of Army has issued a stern warning to men who commit domestic violence, saying if they can’t respect those closest to them, they won’t be welcome to serve the nation.”

   No he didn’t. Read the statements they are gender neutral.
   Watch the first part of the video at page bottom. (Recommend)
   It has a male who has an appalling experience with a DV women.

   He issued no stern warning to “men”
   It’s a warning too violent people who won’t engage in rehab etc, some are women and some are men.
   The author has totally rewritten his words.

   But heh, some people only read the first bits and can’t be bothered with the rest.

   http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/army-chief-cracks-down-on-domestic-violence-i-reject-them-as-members-of-the-army/news-story/21b755bf1506c268c8b3bef8f49c1d23

   Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 16th August 2017 @ 11:17 pm

6. 

   As an experiment I would click on a gender implied headline.

   Then go to the story and read paragraph by paragraph from the bottom, up the page.

   Gives an interesting perspective on the indoctrinated journalist.

   Comment by Downunder — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 7:41 am

7. 

   DJ Ward @ 5: Well spotted, but note the general was wearing a white ribbon. Even though the direct quotes show carefully chosen, gender neutral words, anyone who wears a white ribbon is supporting the exclusion of male victims from any concern and the exclusion of female perpetrators from any criticism.

   Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 11:08 am

8. 

   #7. Man X, I’ve been in a Family Court courtroom where the Registrar was wearing a White Ribbon. I was only the support person sitting at the back of the Court so could say nothing to my friend or his Lawyer about it at the time. And the case was all over before there was a chance for me to inform them. Neither of them noticed but the Lawyer did say that if he’d seen it, he would have asked the Judge to ask the Registrar to remove it because as part of the “Court” the registrar can’t be seen as expressing his support for an organization representing female victims of DV while ignoring male victims. The case would have become a lot more interesting after that, I’d wager !

   Comment by golfa — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 12:23 pm

9. 

   Dj,@5 It seems the reporter Liz Burke has been told once before.
   Personally I commend the bloke for his well chosen words, there’s nothing in the article that mentions why he felt compelled to react in such a way but of course a woman can say whatever they like to a man and that’s not considered abuse.

   https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.couriermail.com.au/sport/boxing-mma/female-journalist-exposes-disgusting-sexist-abuse-at-suncorp-stadium/news-story/216358c3d4c436dbb7ec5650139a2df3

   Comment by Voices back from the bush — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 12:30 pm

10. 

    golfa @ 8: Mmm, I wonder if the judge would have ordered the removal of the white ribbon. And what if someone wore a symbol of a campaign that said “Maori, take the pledge not to commit or remain silent about violence towards white people”?

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 12:57 pm

11. 

    Voices @ 9: Oh that poor fragile little flower of a t.v. presenter! She had never been so badly abused! She will need years of therapy to recover from the PTSD of being called a few rude names. How dare any man speak to WOMEN that way? Didn’t he know women are royalty and men shouldn’t ever talk to them without being invited to first? Off with his head! (Or at least throw him out of the event that he probably paid a lot to attend.) Wimmin should be allowed to point cameras at people to their hearts’ content.

    What was reported of course wasn’t ‘sexist’ at all, it was simply some commonly used rude names more often directed at women as opposed to other commonly used words more often directed at men.

    Lady, a male boxing match needs a self-righteous female covering it like a fish needs a fishing net.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 1:09 pm

12. 

    10,& 11 great comments. We should all get together for a beer sometime .

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 1:15 pm

13. 

    I will try to make it to the Fathers at Parliament event on 1st September and I understand people will be meeting for a beer at the Backbenchers Bar afterward.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 17th August 2017 @ 1:55 pm

14. 

    #4 update.
    In the #4 example the woman is furious that her man (target) didn’t front up with a giant rock that cost a fortune. That is of course how you measure someone’s love for you, apparently.

    This article shows how this can become very expensive for the male if things turn to custard.
    You are no longer entitled to get the ring back if things turn to custard.
    Unless you get her to sign a contract before she receives it.
    Can you visualise that?
    He goes down on to one knee.
    He reaches to his pocket an pulls out a piece of paper and a pen.
    Before I offer you the ring can you sign this please.
    What a moment spoiler.
    Because if he doesn’t he can’t get it back.
    He will be accused of not being fully committed or having some weird plan of breaking things off.
    Maybe after he’s taken her prized virginity..

    This is court sanctioned blackmail.
    You are criticised for being cheap and the opportunity to create a contract to protect yourself is virtually nil as well.
    Women can now just aim to get the poor sucker to propose then bolt for the door with the profits.
    On to the next one.

    This case might have made the women in #4 happy, and that is a big might at $16,200.
    Who ends the relationship is irrelevant as the reason for him ending things is not explained.
    No fault divorce remember.

    Time for men to rethink the wedding ring culture.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/95970883/the-broken-engagement-and-the-16260-ring

    Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 21st August 2017 @ 1:03 am

15. 

    I don’t disagree with your comments about rethinking the relationship culture, easy for young men to get burnt.

    This was a local court, like our district court.

    I wouldn’t be too quick to suggest that an engagement ring would not come back, in different circumstances and a High Court case for a big rock might end up with costs against the silly party as well.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 21st August 2017 @ 5:31 am

16. 

    I doubt a leading speaker to a women’s anti sexual violence conference would be banned from entering the country.
    I cant think of it ever happening.
    But stopping men when the word sex and the word violence is in the application was probably automatic.

    Imagration when reading the application probably reasoned that he was here to advocate male offending. There’s after all no such thing as male victims of anything.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/97207363/inz-reconsiders-visa-application-from-ugandan-antisexual-violence-advocate

    Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 27th September 2017 @ 10:05 am

17. 

    A man who pushed the boundaries and changed thinking, even words, language. I bet he had a few battles with people who campaign agianst his business lifestyle. Problem was the women involved were all smiles and thought well of Hugh Hefner and we’re doing quite well out of it.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/97371326/hugh-hefner–why-i-like-to-think-of-him-as-a-freedomof-speech-and-civilrights-champion

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 1st October 2017 @ 10:57 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.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ