The Success of Feminism
Feminism is really succeeding at having men treated as worthless. This man was injured in an assault by a group of vicious, thieving females and onlookers stood by watching without intervening. The story reflects a number of things.
1. Some women are seriously violent just as some men are seriously violent.
2. Contemptuous, uncaring and hating attitudes towards men have been fostered by feminists permeating society to the extent that people find it entertaining to see a man being terrorized and injured by women.
3. Police found the group and arrested one female? What about the others? Oh yes, we forgot, they’re female.
4. The one female police have arrested is much less likely to be charged than a male would be. If she is charged she is much more likely to get diversion, to be referred for psychiatric assessment, and/or to be discharged. In the unlikely event she is convicted of anything her sentence is much more likely to be a ‘helping’ rather than a punitive sentence and will certainly be much more lenient than any male would get for the same violence.
We notice the organization ‘Shine’ is running a series of tv advertisements about family violence, with claims such as ‘one in 3 women are the victims of partner violence’. As yet, no mention of male victims and certainly not of female abusers. ‘Shine’ must have been given government money to spread their propaganda. Well done ‘Shine’, your misandrist activities are really working. Males are now widely treated as worthless. Keep up the good work and you may get even better results such as concentration camps with mass graves to get rid of the male gender which clearly to blame for everything bad in the world. Except some of those males who have renounced maleness and become sufficiently similar to women.
Speaking about men who have renounced maleness.
Based on feminist hatred of Donald Trump he must feel emboldened.
I will say that I don’t agree with everything Donald Trump believes in.
I am pro choice for example.
But this is just full of left wing media bullshit.
Dunne ran child support for 7 years.
10% of that money is stolen from men who are not the real fathers.
Up to 40% is stolen from men who did not consent to the pregnancy.
Unknown amount stolen from male rape and sexual abuse victims.
It’s Dunnes actions that will take generations to fix.
And it should be.
While he is rotting in prison.
I want too see my child.
No you can’t.
“The 46-year-old and Busson went through a few more break-ups before she became pregnant with their daughter in 2011. Thurman reveals her pregnancy news was not met with a happy response from Busson.”
Pregnancy without consent agian.
Better get pregnant quick.
This rich man looks like he wants to run away.
“When she doesn’t see her father for a long time I think it just creates anxiety,” Uma said about her daughter’s relationship with her ex.”
What a suprise.
Full custody to the mother.
Thanks for the child support and.
This is essentially a protection order.
White knights in blue to the rescue.
Interesting if the witness statement differs from the women’s statement.
Would she be charged with making a false statement.
Or was she just to off her face drunk to be liable.
Watch out for the poor me, years of abuse.
Feminist talk show appearances.
Women refuge adds etc.
Yep guaranteed to get custody of the kids now.
Not that she’s even a real mother.
Needs a nanny.
A lot of the success of feminism is in making or using using research.
Here is an example of dishonest research.
This study in affect says that our environment changes the perception of girls as to to what they are capable off in terms of intellectual achievement.
The study at no point proves or exposes as false that these perceptions are influenced by biology.
The study only exposes that something is happening.
Also at no point does the study prove or disprove that the assumption made by the girls is due to an honest assessment of all the inputs into thier belief systems. Not just that all the genius people are males. It could also be due to the adult males in thier lives being brighter on average than the average female in thier lives. This could be true as many really dumb males are in prison compared to really dumb females being highly likely to being there parent as these females have high numbers of children. This is opposite to high intellect mothers who hardly have any children in comparison. The children from the low intellect mothers will more than likely have no males in there lives, other than male teachers. Ie only exposed to high intellect males and low intellect females.
Despite this a conclusion is offered as truth.
Females are subject to environmental bias.
And this bias is due to descrimination against women from 200 years ago etc.
This environmental bias causes females not to chose high interllect subjects.
It denies by omission that although average intellect may be the same between females and male, there may be differences in the distribution or types of intellect between males and females.
A more realistic influence to subject choices.
Typical of feminism.
This is dishonest.
Also my generation in the western world has had equality in education.
Even discrimination in education against males.
This being true for New Zealand.
The majority of genius people are still male.
Read brain chemistry research by professor Michael Gurain.
Might give these dumb arse women some clues.
Good analysis DJ Ward @5. I had similar thoughts when I read the article, noting that the researchers’ ‘discrimination against women’ conclusions did not logically follow from the evidence. As you mention, it may be biological for children to view fathers as more capable and certainly to differ in their confidence about choosing to play a difficult rather than an easier game, but the other explanations you offered were also realistic and certainly weren’t ruled out or addressed in any way in that research. Another possibility is that for young minds seeing the unavoidable biological truth that men are physically bigger and stronger creates an impression of greater capability and achievement. Even another possible explanation is that the nature of the questions they asked caused an artifact in the results. For example, the researchers claimed that the photos of men and women did not differ and that this was proven by the fact that younger children selected the photos of their own gender. However, it’s possible that the photographs were different in subtle ways that only somewhat older children were able to recognize, and it didn’t appear that the researcher’s checked this.
Sure, it may be that social attitudes towards women play a part in these children’s beliefs, but that doesn’t seem so likely in our era in which women are frequently portrayed in movies and tv as head cop, talented scientist, genius computer analyst, super hero capable of dispatching a dozen men at a time and so forthe, and seldom given the bumbling idiot roles so often assigned to males. The subjects in this study were of the age that most will have been exposed to such media portrayals, yet that didn’t appear to cause them to see women being as clever and competent as men.
Admits that men are being mocked.
Then mocks men.
A collection of male tales about men trying to be decent.
Why must we mock men? Most are trying to be decent.
Ie she is mocking us.
We are not decent.
Just trying to be.
I do give her some cridit for even writing this article but she could have included the long list of thing were males are subject to bias.
“read of a woman feeling sick because she has a male baby growing inside her”
Probably should ring child protection crevices as a mother that doesn’t want or hates a baby is a risk to that baby.
“I could continue here with a blistering polemic about how all men are not foot soldiers of the patriarchy”
She actually thinks it exists.
Probably believes in unicorns too.
Another example of rubbish reporting of rubbish research was this article about a study in which adults were questioned about their attitudes to housework chores. The authors suggested that the reason women do more household chores than men is because they are more agreeable and they avoid conflict, but there was nothing in their study apparently to support this idea that was based on ‘several psychological studies’ that showed women scored higher on ‘agreeableness’. To be fair, the researchers only suggested ‘agreeableness’ as a possible explanation for their findings but the journalist incorrectly portrayed that as proven.
The underlying claim that women do more housework also was not addressed in this study, but was assumed on the basis of other studies. These researchers must not have bothered to read the studies that used different measurements of housework (such as including property maintenance and taking into account the hours available after paid employment time) and found little gender difference.
Never mind, keep rolling out the advocacy research without concern for such (male invented scientific) trivia as reliability and validity.
DJ Ward @7: I would also give Ms Mollard some credit for writing this article, especially noting the many observations she has made of men being nice, normal, caring people. Yes, the article is a bit patronizing (or as one of the commenters said, ‘matronizing’) but how rare it is for men to get any acknowledgement for their contributions and sacrifices.
Look what those crazy Russians are up to now. It seems they don’t enjoy destroying their families as much as our government does. They don’t seem to get so much of a kick out of putting their men in prisons either.
Russia parliament votes 370-3 to decriminalise domestic violence.
The figures correlate to 36,000 women being beaten by their partners every day.
How many men?
Also the law is not about beating people. People who do that will still be arrested.
It’s about not criminalising slapping, pushing and shoving etc.
Even when these things do happen, then there is still a liability to prison time that would probably occur without trial. Like a speeding ticket.
Like a cool off period.
It does not support anybody that regularly abuses there partner.
It’s just realistic.
Unlike us were the legal profession and it’s hangers on get to micro manage people’s lives.
Asset stripping them in the process.
Also police won’t have to waste enormous amounts of time on feminist mandating bullshit and do real work instead.
Russians are smart.
They won the war against Germany.
First to put man in space.
Spent a fraction of money compared to US and still competing in the Cold War.
Clearly they have watched the west trying to deal with domestic violence.
Also add that it was there legal system pushing for what we have got.
What a suprise.
Money, money, and more money.
A wasteland of broken families as a result.
Unbelievable claims by a female lawyer.
“According to an agreed statement of facts, the teacher left the dinner with the student to be driven home, but asked to stop a few blocks away to hide her address from students.”
This means she was making rational decisions at the time of the alledged event.
“The teacher’s counsel, Dizintra King, said her client’s “blackout” and lack of recollection of events “has to be accepted as truth” because there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.”
Apart from remembering not to stop at her house. A blackout at the same time as not having a blackout?
Has to be accepted as truth?
I wonder how many men get that line to work for them?
“She said the student, in another situation involving an intoxicated woman, “might well have found himself facing some sort of criminal charge””
Is she also saying that if a female has consential sexual relations with a drunk male that they would be charged?
Just intoxicated women.
Is that threatening and intimidating a witness or complainant?
@13: The sad thing is that this lawyer was telling the truth. Even if a woman in a position of power feels up a guy and offers to engage sexually with him, he is liable to be prosecuted if she had drunk any alcohol. We know already that when both the male and female have been drinking more or less equally, somehow the police and courts see fit to only charge the male and always see the female as the victim. This law says that if a woman gets drunk she is not responsible for what she engages in or even initiates, yet if people (especially males) who are charged with offences and blame their behaviour on drunkenness, they are told it’s no defence because they were responsible for getting drunk and therefore their subsequent behaviour. The laws around sexual offending have become untenable and unable to serve justice.
Guess feminist still can’t get over Trump winning.
But there’s an interesting twist to her alternative facts babble.
“It’s not hard to see the mindset behind the Trump team … basically, wear down the media with a steady flood of “alternative facts” until many of those reporters start going along with the huff and bluff purely to get access to the president and his camp.”
It’s not hard for her too see what they have done as this is the feminists method of success.
“We have a number of great journalists in this country, with our leading newspapers the Herald and Dominion, along with our main TV networks boasting excellent reporting pools.”
Yes well beaten down by feminist hate and persecution and well indoctrinated with women’s studies courses.
Propaganda, alternative facts, and the Media are bedfellows.
This article being a good example.
Here we have feminists in action.
Doing there best to persecute a male.
Labour’s spokeswoman on family and sexual violence, Poto Williams, tweeted today: “I am concerned that Willie Jackson is becoming a Labour Party candidate with a prominent ranking on the list.”
How dare a male think he can become an MP.
What’s she scared of.
A possible candidate for spokesman on family and sexual violence?
Campaigner for victims of sexual violence Louise Nicholas said on Facebook that she was “gutted and disappointed” by the party’s decision to take on Jackson.
Let’s just hope she doesn’t accuse him of anything.
“Jackson told reporters at Waitangi that he apologised again, that he would ring Williams and that he thought he had a good relationship with Louise Nicholas.”
He is going to have to apologise for the rest of his life.
Jackson and former co-host John Tamihere were suspended from talkback radio.
Yes they were.
Jackson was punished by having to work with a feminist host.
Just making sure the matriarchy have the dog on a leash.
John sued and got paid out for the suspension.
Because they did nothing wrong.
I’ll repeat that.
They did nothing wrong.
But Jackson has to apologise forever.
“Labour’s position on domestic violence and sexual violence was second to none, including the work Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvin had done in a leading a hikoi against violence.”
Second to none?
Sorry I’m laughing too much.
Blah blah blah.
So mister Little get up in parliament and ask the minister of justice why women should under the law retain the right to rape boys and men?
We don’t have a rape culture against females. People hate rapists, and prosecute them and inprison them wherever possible. That’s not a rape culture.
A rape culture is where it is condoned and even accepted in law as legal.
I’m taking a guess Poto Williams is a rape culture advocate.
Never heard her do her job and defend male rape victims.
Or male domestic violence victims.
Is it labour policy to make paternity testing compulsory.
Just man hating bigotry from the Labour Party.
Little said Poto Williams was expressing “legitimate valid views.”
I have to repeat myself agian.
A court ruled they did nothing wrong.
But I guess feminist do not care about what judges think.
Something feminists and Menz might have in common.
Oh my the study is causing people to live in terror.
The real scary thing as # 5 and #6 shows.
There is no objective thinking.
A journalist without that.
Now that’s something that can cause all of us to live in terror.
DJ Ward @ 16: Indeed, they did nothing legally wrong but we no longer have a right to do what isn’t legally wrong, because feminists and other social justice warriors demand censorship of any point of view, or any facts, they don’t like to hear.
This is similar to Family Court law which operates a quasi-criminal legal code of its own, punishing people for doing things that are not illegal. The feminists of course have been successfully demanding that criminal laws catch up with the quasi-criminal codes long operated by the Family Court, i.e. that a man shouldn’t be allowed to argue with a female partner, raise his voice, make any criticism of her or attempt to influence how much of his earnings she spends, and that he shouldn’t make any rules for his children or punish them, because if he does any of these things he is using patriarchal power and control.
DJ Ward @ 17: Yes, this journalist Ben Pobjie seems to be well indoctrinated into feminist ideology. Fair enough that he wants the best for his twin girls and doesn’t like the idea that they might see themselves as less achieving than boys. But it seemed a bit over the top for him to experience terrifying panic after reading a study that (wrongly) assumed that young girls’ gender beliefs were all instilled by ‘pervasive forces of history and culture’ (nudge nudge wink wink we all know you mean the patriarchy, Ben).
Ben, we agree with you when you say
and we agree with your goal to
and we agree that we can all
and that we can
But Ben, what about your own stereotypes of men and your own denigration of yourself as a male? Like when you say
and when you refer to
And why have you not noticed the much more damaging messages that our society, including you, is giving to your young son as a worthless, dangerous being whose achievements are only due to his male privilege and who should be constantly ashamed of himself and his gender.
It seems Ben that stereotyping, prejudice and views of oneself as inferior is ok when it comes to men, and you are modelling this for all of us.
The question in this case is what is the consequences of females using sex to manipulate males into committing crimes.
In this case the female gets the same sentence as the male.
All her actions were calculated and predatory.
His were just naive or just love struck dumb.
Is her actions also indecent assualt.
Sexual acts that a normal person thinks is wrong.
16, I spent four hours over three appointments with Poto Williams trying to convince her that the 38% (known) victims of Canterbury DV also deserve consideration. She sat there each time trying to make little bracelets out of rubber bands. Perhaps I should send her a book on making bracelets, when she’s finished with that perhaps then she could do her job without discriminating against men?
DJ Ward @ 20: Interesting questions you raise. I don’t know about the laws in England but here in NZ we have s128A of the Crimes Act that might have been applicable to this woman. s128A(7) states:
If Mr Cheremeh was mistaken about the nature and quality of the sexual activities he and Ms Lauro participated in (for example believing them to be an expression of Ms Lauro’s genuine true love and attraction to him and having no knowledge that she was only manipulating him to serve her real boyfriend), then under NZ law she could theoretically be prosecuted for a sexual crime. If their sexual activity included penetrative oral or vaginal sex, then her crime would be sexual violation (women in NZ cannot be convicted of rape) with a potential prison sentence of 20 years or even preventive detention. Of course, pigs will fly before we see any woman prosecuted under s128A for any sex with an adult male no matter how exploitative or dishonest she was. If this law were applied equally then women would be prosecuted for becoming pregnant after lying about birth control.
s128A is an especially pernicious piece of law designed as ammunition in the war against men. Some of what it’s trying to address is valid but its wording was designed to allow women to withdraw retrospectively consent they clearly gave at the time based purely on their subjective claims rather than having to prove any intent or wrongdoing by the male. Note for example the wording of s127A(7) that retrospectively renders consent invalid if the complainant was mistaken about the nature and quality of the sex. It’s not necessary for the accused to have done anything to cause the complainant to be mistaken. s128A is full of such wording that allows people (read men) to be criminalized with the most serious crimes on our books for doing absolutely nothing wrong, based only on the complainant’s beliefs, state or feelings.
Unusually in any western country, Ms Lauro received an equivalent sentence to her co-offender. That will have been purely because her crime was against law enforcement and she made a mockery of the vetting process used by police. The state cares little about the harm women do to lowly men but does care when state organs are embarrassed.
voices @21: Don’t hold your breath. Like so many feminists Ms Williams seems unable to exercise honesty or rationality. In part this may be due to effective indoctrination into feminist ideology, but I think the underlying motivation is self interest, seeking constantly to enhance the power and privilege of her own gender without any concern for equality or harm done to the ‘other side’ who she has convinced herself are the baddies. It’s really little different from any other war in which people from one group, rightly or wrongly, feel aggrieved and threatened by people from another group and this leads them to develop highly distorted views of the other group and to abandon all sense of caring, humanity or morality towards the other group.
Aren’t men just the violent ones?
@24: So that violent woman has been caught and charged. That probably would not even have happened if the victim had been a male. We await this nasty piece of work’s pussy pass.
Here’s how worthless men are treated as parents. This father in Australia cared for ‘his’ baby but when the junkie mother finally disclosed that he wasn’t the father a DNA test was done and the baby was then removed to be fostered to strangers. Yeah, enlightened.
The public went WTF.
They asked a lawyer.
Out came admissions of bigotry.
“As a matter of law, fathers don’t have fewer rights than mothers but as a matter of practice it’s something we certainly see,” says Dowd
“Wherever possible a child lives with the mother. However, in this case, the mother was found to have no attachment so it wasn’t found to be in the child’s best interest,” Dowd says.
“This would remain under constant review. If the mother has a drug problem and can show in a year’s time that she has that under control, parental supervision would be reassessed. She can, at any time say, ‘Can I have my baby back now please?’”
No mention of the mother getting the same sentence.
Or any sentence.
@28. None of the articles I searched for concerning this case make any mention of the mother being prosecuted. Even if the mentally disturbed stepfather was the leading figure in this offending surely the mother also offended.
She would have got off.
Claimed he abused her?
She can’t go to jail.
She’s such a good mother.
Someone needs to look after the kids.
It’s not her fault.
She had a bad man in her life.
Classic example of the success of feminism.
The lawyers can probably buy a new house each out of this one.
“Patton allegedly submitted the domestic violence restraining order request after a scheduled visit between her ex and Julian went awry. Robin has been accused of losing his temper and violently banging on the door after no one answered when he turned up at the home of Paula’s mother to pick up his son for an authorised visit.”
So they were home.
But didn’t answer the door.
So they purposefully manufactured a situation that would make any person angry.
“The R&B hitmaker’s temporary loss of custody has occurred nearly two weeks after he turned up at Patton’s house on 13 January with cops by his side in a failed attempt to meet with Julian. Robin was turned away from her home and forced to leave the property after the little boy informed police officers he was afraid of his dad and wanted to stay with his mother.”
How much coaching did that take?
Feminists desires for equality unfair?
It can backfire on women.
Women can be treated like men and its just horrible.
Article by Amanda Platell
“Every bone in your body screams out that this is unfair, a travesty of justice. Why should Julie’s stay-at-home, philandering husband — who’s clearly capable of a highly paid job — have any right to her money?
Women everywhere are rightly appalled and Mrs Sharp is challenging the 2015 ruling, seeking to reduce the payout to £1.2 million.
The trouble is this is the modern world of equality which feminists fought so hard for. It is unfair, but disproportionate payouts like this are what men suffer all the time.”
So men have been subject to travesties of justice, unfair, appalling and disproportianate treatment. Men also suffer all the time.
“Feminists have been inordinately successful in getting a better deal for women in divorces, and it is easy to understand why. But now there are cases like this, where the wife gets hit.”
So when it happens to a guy it’s understandable.
But feminism when it happens to a women involves her getting hit?
“Feminist demands have created divorce laws that are unfair and punitive — usually to men, but increasingly to women like Mrs Sharp, too. The tragedy is the only guaranteed winners are avaricious lawyers.”
Finally female journalist and Menz on the same page.
This is good 18 minute clip by Hannah Wallen that identifies the problems and poses practical solutions.