MENZ ISSUES

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

125 Years of Feminist Stupidity

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 8:14 am Wed 19th September 2018

No apologetic opening statement.

Today we will be subjected to the insufferable mouth pieces of New Zealand Feminism and who knows what that might produce.

When you see it out there, or if it infests your ears, comment and link to it here.

The bottom line …

Something like a hot-line, for those suffering total disbelief.

129 Responses to “125 Years of Feminist Stupidity”

  1. Downunder says:

    National Council of Women chief executive Gill Greer;

    Actually, Kate Sheppard pretty much nailed it all those years ago, Gill says, when she said: “All that separates, whether of race, class, creed, or sex, is inhuman, and must be overcome.”

    “Women’s rights are human rights, and these are not just for special groups of people, they are for everyone,” Greer says.

    “How do we make life better for women on lower incomes on short term contracts, earning low wages, who might be single parents? How do we prevent transgender secondary students from being more likely to commit suicide?

    “Feminism cannot move forward unless we move together, and if we don’t support equal rights for everybody then what are we doing? We have to be at the forefront for people who are too often marginalised.”

    There’s always stupid at the thick end of the ideological wedge.

  2. mama says:

    At reading the above, I break in to tourettes barage,

    Dear Kate, Greer and The Prime Minister, extraordinary people do extraordinary things indeed… like BRAIN SURGERY, AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING, etc, etc….show me the woman. There are differences in peoples and as clever humans we live together regardless, or used to.

  3. Downunder says:

    Vote for us and you’ll get the money – Jacinda Ardern

    Workers in female-dominated professions will find it easier to claim fair pay under a bill introduced to Parliament on the 125th anniversary of women getting the vote, the Government has promised.

    The Equal Pay Amendment Bill also contains a rule allowing courts to award “back pay” for pay equity claims, though officials said that would “in general” only date back to the time when a claim was first raised.

    Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said the bill implemented all the recommendations of a working group on pay equity established by the former National government, but “without the hurdles it had planned” that made raising claims too difficult.

  4. Downunder says:

    And just in case you’ve forgotten 120 years of Suffrage

  5. Evan Myers says:

    The Feminists crow
    A Feminist crows
    A murder of crows

    Now I get it …

  6. mama says:

    So how years since the average man got to vote, wasn’t it just years before??

  7. Downunder says:

    The franchise arrangements started following the introduction of the draft constitution in 1853.

    There were various arrangements and changes through the following 40 years up to 1893 when the country adopted a one person one vote franchise.

  8. mama says:

    so everyone here in got the right to vote, one vote, one voice, in the same year??..I thought I read somewhere that Maori men had the right to vote prior to this.

  9. Downunder says:

    @8 yes, you’re right, there were various arrangements leading up to ‘one person – one vote’.

  10. mama says:

    just heard Iain Less Gall Away on the radio, his voice just got a little higher,or is his bosses just getting lower.

  11. Evan Myers says:

    It’s our national day of drivel and drawl.

    You expect a certain amount of feminist drivel but some of the male attempts to drawl their way into favoritism was sickening.

    And then Andrea Vance interviewing Simon Bridges.

    Spare me.

  12. Downunder says:

    Yeah, it was that bad, eh. Nobody wants to talk about it.

  13. kiwi keith says:

    The media is always male negative and promotional about feminism, to the degree of not only Femsplaining, but telling factual deliberate inexactitudes. I realised watching the news yesterday was pointless. I only count around thirty pro-feminist items on the Herald site this morning. And male items were not so many and not so positive either.

  14. mama says:

    WHOAH…Muriel is good.

    A reminder of the radical nature of the feminist dogma that drove reforms throughout the Western world in the sixties and seventies can be seen in the rhetoric of leading feminist Linda Gordon, a New York University Professor who said, “The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” Or the call of another feminist leader Sheila Cronin: “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”

  15. Downunder says:

    @15

    For many men that have past through this site, their economic picture is much simpler.

    They are essentially removed from the economy.

    Their ability to produce is compromised to a break even if not negative factor that causes responses such as avoidance or rejection of continued involvement.

    The acknowledgement was actually made by Lynn Provost when she was auditor-general.

    While politicians can find alternatives to actual productivity there is essentially no political will to rescue the enforced non productive sector which in turn suits the ideology and dogma of Feminism.

    Economists arguments can often be as shallow as the moment and while they are not wrong, their views support the current political economy rather than the consequences of social engagement that often remain unreported and unresearched.

    The political behaviour around suicide is a visual example of that, because that has been forced into open debate, unlike child support – that is still a dirty word but the same political behaviour.

  16. mama says:

    I get you Downunder, but to call out on the last two governments whom have made their home restless and unloved for some, whilst cheering on minorities groups in the name of votes and glory is at least to be saying something negative that can be turned into a positive to be shown up in A Royal Blood Commission look see.
    I am sure like most of us he will not get his way.

    After all how can you go up against a Prime minister who is out there campaigning sick ideals to the future wanna be politicians.

  17. Downunder says:

    In the political economy alternatives are not an endless resource.

    And you made the point before about how our relativity is diluting.

    He may not get his way and politicians may prefer to ignore him.

    You can’t stop the inevitable either.

  18. mama says:

    Inevitabilities have questions as to what they become though.

    We do not have many Men’s so called charities do we? None seemingly that want to stick their neck out, they are willing to shave off moustache for a day, knowing it will grow back…or hold a conference, if your lucky, or supply you with pamphlets for the work office.

  19. mama says:

    These guys ought to walk in mens shoes…oh that’s right they already do!

    BACKBONE

    In a press release, Backbone co-founder Deborah Mackenzie said: 2017

    “The ten women who agreed to contribute (and there are many more) gave us questions that shine a light on the dysfunction that is happening in the Family Court – the dangers, the misunderstandings, the misinformed decision-making, and the mirroring of the abuse by those in power. These questions require immediate responses.”

  20. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Hi all,

    I’m new to this forum so no doubt you will all welcome me with open arms – won’t you?

    I’m a man and I am very, very concerned that aspects of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism are denying rights to men and causing many men (and many women for that matter) considerable suffering up to and including death (mostly, but not exclusively, by suicide).

    I’m utterly determined to make as big a difference as I can to assuage that suffering.

    But… to achieve such ends we men need to work together, and we need to work with unimpeachable integrity.

    Men’s rights are human rights. If we believe that then we must stand united with anyone concerned about human rights. I find some comments on this site as being universally opposed to anything labelled “feminist”. Some feminists (although it doesn’t seem that way) really are concerned with equality between the sexes. If we are to be considered seriously as human rights activists we need to stand in solidarity with equality feminists and any other group or individual seeking real human rights.

    My second concern is that we need to leave politics out of it. Feminism is highly correlated with the left and anti-feminism with the right. However, I’m left leaning, yet I despise much about contemporary feminism. Many of the comments on this site are right leaning. Why alienate me by rabbiting on about your particular political beliefs?

    If we want to make a difference in men’s lives then we need to put our political differences to one side, act with the utmost respect towards the feminists whose ideas we stridently oppose (It’s not their fault they hold incredibly harmful ideas – it’s just what they have been taught) (If you look back over your life have you ever held dumb beliefs?) (I know I have!) (So hey – let’s have a little compassion for people holding dumb ideas!), unite in being incisively opposed to harmful feminist ideology (not harmful feminists), and stop squabbling amongst ourselves over unrelated differences of opinion that are part and parcel of any diverse group.

    What do you all reckon?

  21. mama says:

    DUMB FEMINIST GROUP…hey finally a majority group.

    Every one will want to join just to get the respect.

  22. george simonovski says:

    @ Audi alteram partem

    If you Latin nick wasn’t enough to attract my humble attention , the your refreshing words definitively are .

    I have been always wondering how come women from different races and cultures stick together once they find themselves in New Zealand . Especially when they have an ax to grind against men. WE, men don’t do that, unfortunately.

    I re-read your post and despite a very small opposition to some of your views I fully agree with you .

    There all sort of people here on this site . Some of us will never really recover of the cruel injustice brought to them because of the aggressive Family Court gender bias , some of us are beaten to submission for the same matter , some of us tried what you are trying and get nowhere , some of us are just intellectual thinkers but no action , some of us are scared , etc . etc – but WE are all real men in the same shoes in nEw Zealand.

    I do recommend new blood ( like you ) and another attempt to organize NZ to protect themselves against the existing and increasing gender bias .

    I don’t have problem with feminists per se as long as they fight for equal rights . I have problem with covert or overt aggressive women who think they are exceptional as gender , who having no family or children behind themselves still think men are to be blamed for that, who sell themselves as ” feminists” jut to get various and numerous government’s easy money and
    so on.

    If you need a concrete support for your idea just tell me

  23. mama says:

    You can not possibly leave politics out of it, they ultra feminists) are completely intertwined now, and as for the charities out there, there are many, in the name of woman only, they are completely dedicated to continuos research and submissions, and surveys, etc.

  24. Evan Myers says:

    DUMB FEMISTUFF:

    The problem is no greater than;

    Our natural sense of justice,

    and

    Their sense of natural justice.

    Oh, and you can take that decision without notice too.

  25. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Thanks George for your very kind comments. In this struggle I certainly could do with a little practical help but won’t need that for a while yet pending the timing of upcoming court hearings in which I am the plaintiff and I am seeking considerable damages from various female chauvinists who have used their positions of power in our society to discriminated against me just because I’m a man and have caused me considerable harm.

    As suggested by my pseudonym I believe it is very important to listen to opposing points of view – something that man-hating feminists seem to never do! I would then very much like to hear about the small areas of opposition that you have about my views.

  26. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Hi Mama,

    Gosh it’s hard to argue with someone called “Mama”. I never got anywhere arguing with my dear (and now sadly late) mother. When I suggested that politics be left out of it, I was not suggesting that solutions to discrimination against men won’t be solved without political influence. Nor can we ignore challenging identity politics (including gender politics) that very much needs to be challenged. I was more suggesting that people can hold views anywhere along socialist to capitalist or liberal to conservative (i.e. classically left to right) continuums and still be united by being deeply concerned about an in-group demanding privileges for their group while denying rights to an out-group as frequently happens these days with those feminists who believe in female chauvinism and hold men in contempt.

    I would like to hear if you disagree with that, along with any reasons you might have for such disagreement.

    Oh, and thanks very much for taking the time to respond to my comment.

  27. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Hi Evan. Thanks for your response to my comment. In my experience most contemporary feminists very much have a sense of injustice and this stems from a sense of grievance that was historically justified but lacks empirical justification other than in mostly very minor matters in western societies in 2018.

    You mention “our” and “their” senses of natural justice. This rings faint alarm bells for me in being a demarcation of ‘us’ who are versus ‘them’. History has shown that similar binary thinking has been at the root of the very worst of mankind’s inhumanity to each other.

    I try to avoid having a “sense” of natural justice. I see it more as a set of very clear principles that can be applied to all of ‘us’ regardless of our beliefs, senses or feelings.

    Opposing their sense of natural justice with our sense of natural justice is fighting fire with fire. I suspect that we would be better off fighting fire with water. By that I mean challenging the sense of grievance calmly, politely, and with evidence that shows how much fostering that sense of grievance is harming them as well as women and men in wider society. Of course such challenges will be met with claims that we are misogynists. But if we keep repeating the message loudly and clearly then public opinion will change and respect for all people regardless of identity will prevail.

  28. mama says:

    #28, Audi, or, MISTER LISTEN, I am all ears , do not hold back. What ideas Do you have?

  29. MurrayBacon says:

    DownUnder, you really are losing it now.
    Never before in my life have I seen someone argue with themself, under so many false pseudonyms.
    I thought I had problems pulling my confused multiple identities together for short periods of time. But I have to take my hats off to you. [Each of my identities has a separate hat of course.]
    This is far outside the reach of dreamy psychiatrists and anti-social psychologists with arms full of tablets….
    We need a policeman, buckets of cold water and straight-jackets to sort out this mess.
    MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

  30. Downunder says:

    No idea what you’re on about Murray –  Audi Alteram Partem is not me.

  31. mama says:

    31 – So Murray, or can I call you Axe, are you saying YOU are Downunder too, as well an awl?

    But as a woman do not get me started on MULTITASKING!

  32. Downunder says:

    #31 I certainly hope that is not what he is suggesting.

  33. MurrayBacon says:

    Oh Downunder, you are still persisting under your multiple personality denials.
    Hope is a delusion, that is fast slipping away…….

  34. gwallan says:

    “Some feminists (although it doesn’t seem that way) really are concerned with equality between the sexes.”

    Such feminists are conspicuously absent from our governments, institutions and services.

  35. mama says:

    37,, I think this is because these types of feminists have common sense and probably think things are going fine for them,..largely,.. they have good jobs and husbands (far out) for goodness sake!, they have it all, why be greedy?
    Your average seventies feminist would agree with some who have studied it, that they feel it has been hijacked (feminism)

  36. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    We have never come across a feminist who appears to be interested in real gender equality. The term after all means ‘femaleism’ not ‘equalism’. Feminists as far as we can see have only ever shown concern to ensure women don’t miss out on anything men get. The many ways that men are disadvantaged don’t matter to them in the slightest, no more than does the obvious harm done to men through feminist actions or the poor level of honesty and ethics the feminists routinely apply. Reasoning isn’t likely to work any better than it has done so far; actually it has worked to some extent but nowhere near enough to outweigh the juggernaut of feminist propaganda, activism and law change.

    The current Labour-led government has only just started with its femicentric, male-abusing legislation. The previous National-led government wasn’t much better but at least the male abuse slowed down somewhat. No use being shy about the feminist saturation of our political parties. The only parties to have shown any interest in respecting or helping men were ACT (but only a long time ago when Muriel Neuman was with them) and NZ First (during the last election). Even if it was little more than tokenism.

  37. Evan Myers says:

    Worse still Feminists teach women to be victims, to be their own oppressor, blame men, and hold a few silly bitches up as their saviour.

    But if you’ll excuse me apparently I need to go and look up adhominem.

  38. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Good morning Evan. Do you feel better after your rant? Men’s rights is not about making you feel better Evan – It’s about saving people from harm. Yes some / many feminists do that, but not all feminists do that. If you make plainly erroneous statements then people will think you are a moron and they won’t listen to you. You should have looked at the dictionary before posting your comment. Calling people “silly bitches” is an ad hominem argument. You won’t get anyone to listen to you by calling them names. It seems to me that you really need a big a hug Evan. When you feel better you might be able to start thinking clearly.

  39. mama says:

    38,,you say…

    “We have never come across a feminist who appears to be interested in real gender equality. The term after all means ‘femaleism’ not ‘equalism’.”

    I wonder how many of these women actually exist here, of the 44,000 strong in the psa, how many are feminists, they be feminists by default only. I know plenty of women, solo’s, who just go through life taking everything a woman CAN get, in order to do this, men are shafted, and they choose not to think about that.,, to me this is more an anti-humanist/soloist way of being.

    Whereas if men stood together their mass would be virtuos in comparison.

  40. mama says:

    #39,,, Hi, I do think that it is a MASSIVE problem, the one whereby people are being turned into victims.
    THE WORST OF IT BEING THE CHILDREN ARE INCLUDED!

    What the hell are we doing allowing people to be victims, this will not go well.
    Or is it that they want SUICIDE to increase, you know giving people that ultimate right, an aw that.

  41. mama says:

    40,, you say

    You won’t get anyone to listen to you by calling them names. Show me the water.

  42. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Hi MomA. I’m sure you have heard of the term ‘confirmation bias’. Many feminists can’t resist it. They see nefarious intent in whatever men do. Mansplaining, manspreading, opening the door for a woman, failing to open a door for a woman. Whatever men do is wrong. They only see what they want to see and only hear what they want to hear.

    That’s not good eh? But guess what! That is not a feminist condition it is a human condition.

    If you have “never come across a feminist who appears to be interested in real gender equality” then maybe you are only looking for what you want to see? I have made a big effort over the past few years to try and see what’s there – not what I want to see there. What I have seen is that the vast majority of feminists don’t care about equality, but there are a small number who do. The other thing I’ve found is that by talking calmly, respectfully and reasonably with feminists who only care about women, you can slowly start to open their eyes to the pendulum having swung too far such that men and women are now being hurt by the excesses of contemporary feminism.

  43. Downunder says:

    #41 anti-humanist?

    Humanism is a very fluid ideology that tends to ride the social wave of nicity.

    In that respect, I’d say Humanism is highhacked-by-feminists.

    Hardcore Feminism doesn’t include men, they’re a convenience.

    Regardless, it’s a Roman ideology, reborn in the Renaissance much the same as Feminism.

  44. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Good morning Mama.

    #44 “The other thing I’ve found is that by talking calmly, respectfully and reasonably with feminists who only care about women, you can slowly start to open their eyes to the pendulum having swung too far such that men and women are now being hurt by the excesses of contemporary feminism.”

    If men’s rights activists get organised (see my post about a proposed initial meeting) then we can hold those calm, respectful and reasonable conversations in the public eye. We won’t win over radical feminists, but we don’t need to. We need to win over the hearts and minds of ordinary people. Then hate speech and hate actions against men will become socially unacceptable in the same way that hate speech or hate actions against women or ethnic groups is unacceptable. That’s the water!

  45. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Good morning Downunder.

    This thread that you started is titled “125 Years of Feminist Stupidity”

    Do you think the first wave of feminism that brought about the political emancipation of women is stupid?

    Do you think the second wave of feminism that brought about the cultural emancipation of women is stupid?

    Do you think that implying that feminists are persistently stupid will help or hinder the cause of those who are genuinely concerned about men’s rights and the harms being foisted on men and women by the excesses of the third wave?

  46. mama says:

    45,,mornin,,, Humanism, so fluid that it runs free in the minds of people that hold those, not ideologies but values,… humane thinkers. I do agree that it can be an ideology when it come to social nicity, like in FACE OFF, oh I Mean Face, you know..somewhere you can pretend to be humane or shall we just call it compassionate.

    46,,yes, that is the water.

  47. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    @44: Can you point to any particular person calling him/herself a feminist who has shown any interest in gender equality regarding matters disadvantaging men? Whatever the ‘wave’, feminists simply have not cared about men. In first wave feminism their stance was “We know men might have issues but we have our hands full so men will have to take responsibility for dealing with their own issues”. However, as men have attempted to do just that, feminists have done all they can to impede them, shutting down men’s meetings etc. As previously stated, the term ‘feminism’ highlights what that movement is about and it’s not ‘equalism’.

    We have known many female friends who at some time called themselves feminists and who initially paid some lip service in acknowledging men’s issues when shown the evidence. None of those people ever did anything attempting to address those issues, and it didn’t take long before their true ideological colours of self-interest came out. Usually, they end up showing intolerance towards further attempts to discuss men’s issues.

    Feminism is like religion; evidence and reasoning won’t make much impact on the indoctrinated. However, yes it’s worthwhile to keep trying to reason with those lawmakers and other powerful forces who still retain any ability to consider matters honestly. And yes, it’s important to acknowledge that women faced injustice and unnecessary limitations in some ways and that changing those things was justified.

    Getting some mainstream media organization on board would be the biggest gain. From comments on blogs etc, many of the general public are already quite aware now of the bullshit routinely spread by feminists.

  48. Downunder says:

    #48 There’s a strong connection between the post-war philosophy of Jean-Paul Satre, (French) that Feminism translates into its own form of Humanism.

    If you look at the strength of any contemporary position that is what is reflected in Humanism.

    In that respect Humanism is the ideology of the popular culture or the dominant culture that finds itself compelled to add to this continual rewriting.

    In my view it’s a pretense that it’s not an ideology; it’s very mischievous one.

  49. Downunder says:

    #47

    This thread that you started is titled “125 Years of Feminist Stupidity”

    Yes.

    Thank you for your contribution.

  50. mama says:

    To my mind the humanist for human is what being a lion is to a lion. think I might just call myself an Animalist.

  51. mama says:

    I like Warren Farell, this guys comment on Farells’ writings…

    He did a meta-analysis of the gender gap in pay in 2005 and found 25 reasons men earn more than women. You got it, gender discrimination was not one them. In fact, that book is the worksheet for women who want high paying jobs. Additionally, he found that unmarried childless women actually earned 13% more than men.

    I have yet to see a response from any feminist group that reviewed his data and found that he was wrong. As opposed to just saying that of course there is gender discrimination and he is wrong.

  52. Downunder says:

    #52 Human

    Hu:God Man:Mankind … a species with male and female.

    We really shouldn’t let Feminism define humanity, just in case they’re cruel to animals.

  53. mama says:

    Hey maybe that is the KEY, if men call them selves Animals,again, feminism will have to be nice, as long as you don’t ask for a back scratch or tummy rub.

  54. mama says:

    or maybe we are already on our way back through evolution and this is all natural, we will become hermaphrodite, talk about no fun.

  55. JustCurious says:

    Anger is good if it can make you wise.

    Fear creates whatever it is you fear.

    Hate however, is the worse of all as it not only consumes those who harbor it.

    But if used with fear – it becomes a form of pollution. It corrupts and of course is contagious.

    And with respect to all posters here. Every thing posted is read not just nationally but internationally. Some of us are hurt enough long term that throwing insults makes them feel good and give them attention they would not normally have.

    Worse when they are intelligent enough to string two sentences together and use suspicious logic or past/historical misconstrued events or traumatic experiences to validate their stances, actions and attitude.

    I guess this is where that famous saying comes into context?

    “I shall protect your right to the first amendment with my life:-)”

    It does pro-pulse this site on the google search rankings but unfortunately lay waste to every man’s efforts here to steer our communal boat towards safe anchorage where all passengers can make the most of their human potential with their rights intact and protected.

    In fact, it makes us sound like a bunch of radical idiots whom validate and justify every attempt made by others to dismiss us as hate filled and angry men.

    I have stated before I do not like the word “feminism” because it refers to female in a derogatory manner.

    It is more an accusation than a statement of fact. In my mind, it is a female that wants to be seen as a man and have equal rights to a man. And yet, men and women are not the same. Even though before the Law, all are equal. supposedly.

    Feminism to be appreciated, must be seen as a person’s stance over contradicting evidence blissfully ignorant of the miasma upon which one builds oneself a castle of denial.

    But he who is fighting feminism is the same as he whom is fighting terrorism.

    Nowadays, to fight terrorism is to create terrorism.

    So far, this new wave of anti terrorism has possibly murdered more innocents than the first, second World war and possibly all the wars up to date and under whatever ideology combined. And the death toll is mounting.

    Terrorism uses both hate and fear as a vehicle for violence in all its forms.

    The key factor is no one wins. If we are divided, no one wins… It is not a war against women.

    Essentially I have been posting here in the hope to see us workout what it is we want?
    Define how to best achieve it.
    And rather than posting incendiary comments and alienating ourselves form those that can provide positive action, seek the middle ground where every one meets, consults, collaborate and grow.

    Egos excluded

  56. Downunder says:

    A message so bold it went unquestioned.

    Heather du Plessis-Allan appeared amateurish in a similar pursuit.

    “Pacific Islanders are leeches.”

    Yabba daba do dah, might have got away with that in her South African homeland but not here – a clash of cultures? But the greater problem was our uncommon heritages.

    @hdpa will be required reading in journalism school, not for her revolutionary thinking, rather how to put high heels on concrete Redbands.

    She got it wrong. Wrong because she doesn’t know our history, didn’t grow up in our culture.

    We also have a culture of Feminism. One that has been re-explored of recent. It’s not a celebration of perfection. It’s not unreasonable to ask what if anything went wrong. I won’t go as far as calling any one who missed the point a moron, you don’t have to be stupid to be gullible or fearful, or to feel restrained by its despotic authority.

    Massey University couldn’t be a clearer case of despotic authority.

    I’m not inclined to entertain the ego that acuses simply to be the louder voice or ego that uses the strawman argument to illiminate the question or the do-as-I-say and-not-as-I-do adhominem to signal their virtue.

    But that’s just me.

  57. Evan Myers says:

    #1

    A clear shift against classic Feminism.

    Merkel can keep her migrants we will not going to take responsibility for her madness – Leading Polish MP

  58. Evan Myers says:

    We look after mental health of the unwanted the unclean, the social lepers of Feminism but don’t you worry about that Audi, you just keep your hands clean and carry on.

    Green MP Chloe Swarbrick says the party will push for more services including free counselling for under 25s and more funding for 24/7 helplines.

  59. mama says:

    60,,, yes, I heard her on the radio today,

    It is a shame to think that having their Dads in their lives could have saved their heart ache and the country so much money.

    prevention being better than cure it truly an old wives tale now.

  60. Downunder says:

    An old wives tale. For most of us that has a whole different meaning especially if the bitch had Helen Clark for a lecturer at university.

  61. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @60 Hi again Evan. Not sure who the “we” is in your post, but if you work with others to help alleviate the suffering of the marginalised you have my full support. What can I do to help?

    As to my “hands being clean” or me wishing to keep them that way, I’m afraid you are making erroneous assumptions. I have been getting my hands dirty in the fight for men’s rights for several years now. My (I thought clear) intention in calling for a meeting is to get them even dirtier in taking further action.

    Can you explain to me Evan, why it is that when I challenge you about some of your ideas you have to reject all of mine?

  62. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @62 “bitch” ?

    Hang on I’ll just check!

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

    No, no! As you were. We are on the Menz site, not the: Let’s hate women and call them disparaging names site.

  63. Downunder says:

    Deadbeat Dad
    Handbag
    Domestic violence abuser
    Perpetrator
    Don’t forget Muriel Newman – the ugly troll who supports men’s rights.

  64. mama says:

    62, Downunder, youll have to enlighten me some time .

    65,, some one called Muriel what?

  65. Downunder says:

    Oh, yeah, one of the media puppets in a news article when she was an MP.

    Audi, hasn’t even got his toes wet yet.

  66. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    You cut me deep man – cut me deep. Leave my big hairy dry toes out of this… Sob… Okay?!?

    Talking of wet… is that moisture behind your ears?

    I’m a bit weary of exchanging insults. Want instead to do something to help men?

  67. Downunder says:

    There’s always perspective.

    You could say, in year one, there was only a teeny-tiny bit of stupidity.

    But by year seventy five, studity had gained a leading edge, and by year 125 …

    [I don’t want to get myself in trouble here, but you know what I mean]

  68. mama says:

    That there is ONE LAW for some and Another for the others.

  69. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @69 Better Downunder, better!

    Now that you have introduced some nuance into the story you have made it a story that can be sold to help men. As it stood previously it was a story that could only buy men more trouble.

    1st wave feminism – women get the vote – Yah! Plus perhaps a few loonies on the fringes.

    2nd wave feminism – women get social emancipation – Yah! But at the same time they had SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) and meetings of “Wimmin” who didn’t want “men” in their gender descriptor and refused to sleep with the enemy.

    3rd wave feminism… I find it hard to find any significant valid concerns that contemporary feminists put forward as an indication that women are currently discriminated against (in fact the opposite) but they do seem intent on persistently vilifying men and valorising women which is causing considerable harm.

  70. Downunder says:

    There was no change to the post, no nuance to the story.

    But obviously you were not capable of a unified approach, only one that met your approval.

  71. Evan Myers says:

    From the recent Hillary Clinton book

    “Page 131
    Reproductive rights are central to women’s rights … is intrinsic to our liberty.”

  72. Downunder says:

    #73 Anyone having read this book would see that mirrored in comments and articles printed in our mainstream media, a type of literary-leap-frog, Chinese Whispers, call it what you like, the essential messages get diluted down into the daily political diet, and the ongoing rhetoric.

    Often the confrontations between men are the differing points of view between the informed and the uniformed as to what has been read, understood and interpreted from the key phrases that leading Feminists use, and how the man on the street sees that filter into his life.

  73. JustCurious says:

    I was having a conversation with the woman in me.
    She is the side of me that is always having PMS and
    if she is not; then she is going trough accelerated Men~oh~pause.

    Her hot flashes and sudden phobias are legendary.
    In the coldest of nights at times, she strips herself completely naked and flings her clothes out the window.
    When this wakes me up and I ask, she says, “It’s too hot! I can’t stand it”
    When I grab a few more blankets, she says “just looking at you makes me hotter. Can'[t you have some sympathy?”

    Evrytime we saw a couple made up of a hot young woman with a scruffy looking guy or anyone wealthy; the woman in me said, “watch this one, I give it two years!”

    One time I told her, “you always say that! Makes me feel uneasy. Overtime, I am beginning to think you think like a gold digger. So every woman with an ugly man or a rich man is a gold digger?”

    “watch my words.” she said.

    And surely, after a few years, her prediction came true. the wealthy man became a half wealthy man. And the ugly man became four times uglier.

    Overtime, the man resettled with the same type of woman.
    After a few years, he became a quarter wealthy man.
    And so on and so on

    I know a couple of guys. we used to call them GST…
    After every relationship, they lost half.
    that is when GST was 12.5 %, years ago

    Now that GST is at 15%, they can’t even afford to pay GST

    So I asked the woman in me. “So ok, you were right they were gold diggers.”

    “But then…” I asked again, “what happen when you guys get all the wealth? Won’t you be the new target from wiser guys?”

    She laughed… “no chance in hell” she says.

    and added
    “WE simply cry wolf, by the time the system chews your ass, we get everything back and then more.”

  74. JustCurious says:

    I just had a flash and wondered how many women commit crimes when PMSing?

    Maybe irrelevant but interesting thought. DISCLAIMER: I know not all women are equal. that is a fact.

    AS amazing as it sounds, it’s when they misplace the rose tinted glasses for a few days and by Gosh, when most men get in trouble in their relationship.

    The common fallacy/fact is that with domestic violence… It gets bad, ,, then apologies from the man… then it gets bad again… then apologies form the man… then it gets worse… then apologies from the man….

    What if those times often arose as a consequence of PMS?

    Would it count as temporary insanity?

    And how come for something so regular, I have yet to meet a woman aware and able to say to herself

    “Hang on, it’s that time of the month! And I am not raging, it’s my body warning me, he red tide is rising.”

    Men’s programmed responses are usually avoidance and tolerance whilst build up occurs until saturation then confrontation which can have some elements of explosion.

    So domestic violence really is only seen in the vacuum of male reaction but nothing to do with provocation and sustained verbal, emotional and psychological abuse in the relationship. And a lot of it is baiting.

    I have seen men stand powerless in front of irate females smashing their windshield, defecating over their car seats (dramatizing 🙂 ) and dragging the children by the heels whilst taunting their male counterpart with

    “hit me you fucking cunt [MOD: note that if you use words like this your comment gets sent to moderation]… I dare you to hit me you fucking small dicked bastard. I dare you to hit me you mamma’s boy. You coward, you don’t dare hit me do you?”

    Two days later, it’s honeymoon all over again.

  75. JustCurious says:

    I just had a flash and wondered how many women commit crimes when PMSing?

    Maybe irrelevant but interesting thought. DISCLAIMER: I know not all women are equal. that is a fact.

    AS amazing as it sounds, it’s when they misplace the rose tinted glasses for a few days and by Gosh, when most men get in trouble in their relationship.

    The common fallacy/fact is that with domestic violence… It gets bad, ,, then apologies from the man… then it gets bad again… then apologies form the man… then it gets worse… then apologies from the man….

    What if those times often arose as a consequence of PMS?

    Would it count as temporary insanity?

    And how come for something so regular, I have yet to meet a woman aware and able to say to herself

    “Hang on, it’s that time of the month! And I am not raging, it’s my body warning me, the red tide is rising.”

    Men’s programmed responses are usually avoidance and tolerance whilst build up occurs until saturation then confrontation which can have some elements of explosion.

    So domestic violence really is only seen in the vacuum of male reaction but nothing to do with provocation and sustained verbal, emotional and psychological abuse in the relationship. And a lot of it is baiting.

    I have seen men stand powerless in front of irate females smashing their windshield, defecating over their car seats (dramatizing 🙂 ) and dragging the children by the heels whilst taunting their male counterpart with

    “hit me you fucking c%nt… I dare you to hit me you f^cking small d!cked [email protected]@rd. I dare you to hit me you mamma’s boy. You coward, you don’t dare hit me do you?”

    Two days later, it’s honeymoon all over again.

  76. mama says:

    men are can be very, very forgiving…but if it is real bad, maybe too forgiving, no different to women in an abusive relationship, moving on seems to be more daunting than putting up to what you’ve become accustomed to.

  77. Evan Myers says:

    The very buried suggestion there is that women would never abuse children. Why would a man bother, when it is that bad if it wasn’t for his children.

  78. mama says:

    Yes,,, men will stay for the kids, and they are the choiceless ones and thereby the ones that will pay dearly, the woman has nothing to lose.

  79. JustCurious says:

    Clever Ewan — there is no justification ever for hitting a woman or a child
    And to suggest a man would hit a woman to protect his children is probably fair depending on the special circumstances of the man in this relationship and the caliber of woman he is dealing with as well as the nature of the abuse encountered.
    However, I have a hard time accepting this claim as a justification.

    The example I provided was a dramatization and I doubt not it has already happened.

    But like Confucious says – It’s only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without violence.

  80. DJ Ward says:

    @77 Just Curious.

    Your comment.
    “The common fallacy/fact is that with domestic violence… It gets bad, ,, then apologies from the man… then it gets bad again… then apologies form the man… then it gets worse… then apologies from the man….”

    This is referred in feminist indoctrination anti violence programmes as the Wheel. It’s 100% a male thing relating to creating power and control over women. Making them confused and normalising what’s happening.

    This is the truth however. It is 100% a female thing. It’s biological and it’s men that are the victims.

    When people have sex the chemical Oxytocin is released at 1000% normal in men and 10% more in females. Oxytocin allows in males the creation of emotional memories. Sex creates emotional bonding in males.

    In the situation you described.
    They have sex. The male gets emotional bonding. The female rejects the male. The female creates a demand. The male complies due to the bonding. They have sex. The male gets emotional bonding. The female rejects the male. The female creates a demand. The male complies due to bonding. They have sex.

    I call it the Oxytocin abuse process. I call the females Oxtocin abusers.

    Very common when a female strings a male along to get things she wants.

    The end result however is the continued rejection ultimately results in the male doing something stupid.

    Feminists invented the wheel because it was inherent to their view of domestically violent relationships. The violent relationships they experience. But in virtually all cases the behavour is theirs. The male behavour is a resultant.

  81. JustCurious says:

    Thanks DJ – very informative but a one sided view.

    From my own observations many women tend to use their bodies like a spider web.

    It is the asset by which they can attract, tame and eventually control a man. However the man is complicit in that.

    So for many such people, trading their own body/sanctuary for protection, shelter, fame or whatever reason is currently in fashion is simply par for the course.

    And some get pregnant on purpose. Part of the spider net…

    if the pussy whip does not work then a child will bring the man out of him. Eventually her biggest need is to create dependence. It validates her and gives her a purpose.

    Sadly this purpose turns into dominance. We need a bigger home, this child needs his own room, we need more income…. I know best. This child needs me and I need you to do as I say… and so on and so on…

    that’s when we get saddled with the whip. The cat of nine tails, and when men get enslaved whereby to have peace, they must conform. TO have sex they must please.

    And that is how the table is turned on the majority of men. Even the birthday blowjob is no longer a guarantee : )

    (I am not judging but what is more perverse than a blowjob?) If a man is enslaved for his desire for a blowjob, does he not deserve to be enslaved? Even sex as we know it has been caricatured into a role play of sadistic, animalistic and voyeuristic acts. But that is another subject.

    I would say that is the programming in women and survivalist drive to find shelter, security and protection.

    The same way men are driven to seek a fertile soil to plant their seeds is the same way a woman, like a flower dresses in her best outfit to attract the bee. But the whole idea behind it is colonization. Both for men and women and that is how they meet in a relationship. That relationship is also part of an identity

    However all this dynamics have been replaced by the state. Men are no longer required except for pleasure and what we call “bete de somme”. A heavy load carrier.

    I understand the Oxytocin dynamic and can see how it can be used but I do think also we cannot discard entirely the dynamic of domestic violence.

    Even in non violent relationships, you can observe the same dynamic. Disagreement -Arguments, patch up — arguments again , patch up— arguments again, patch up… over time the saturation point gets lower and lower and lower until it might become a permanent argument or one constantly waiting to happen.

    I am not suggesting it is the man or woman fault at all. I am simply suggesting this pattern is the same in case of violence. The arguments get worse until they degenerate into violence and then the violence replaces the arguments.

  82. mama says:

    I never knew that biologically extremme difference, I thought this article cute.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/just-listen/201406/the-dating-game-testosterone-vs-oxytocin

  83. DJ Ward says:

    @83 JustCurous.

    The pure male domestic violence offender does follow the pattern you describe but instead it’s violence, threat, sex, apology. The beginning of the relationship is not the cyclic wheel. It developers into a jealousy, or control event. A completely different dynamic. The oxytocin abuser scenarios are not male violence scenarios until the end of the relationship. In court it will be presented as him always being violent and emotionally controlling.
    It’s not a one sided view. It’s biology.

    @84 mama.

    Notice how Oxytocin is not mentioned in regard to the male. Despite the 1000% vs 10% dose after sex.
    Testosterone is a sex aggression chemical. Not an Emotional one. It plays no role in bonding.

  84. mama says:

    #85,,DJ,,, Yes I do,, and it amazing to learn that if seen as graphs the men would be peak and drop and the woman linear,, maybe feminism is born out of jealousy!

  85. DJ Ward says:

    More a look at this.

    Never mention that scenario.

    Never mention Vasopressin, as it explains females withdrawing consent during sex and why often males can’t stop. Agian 100% not the mans fault.

  86. JustCurious says:

    Hi DJ –I had a quick search and could not find much about 1000% in men oxytocin.
    I certainly made sure to remove the 1000% out of it to see what results I would get.

    So a link would be helpful. Please.

    I think if I am right, that my question was linked with PMS and violence in relationships.

    From there we moved to debunking feminist fallacies about the cycle of violence from men to women.

    I think we might be linking a lot of issues in a lump and I am now confused at what you are trying to say

    so parenthesises are mine.

    @85- The pure male domestic violence offender does follow the pattern you describe but instead it’s violence, threat, sex, apology. (ok)
    The beginning of the relationship is not the cyclic wheel.(ok — not sure what you mean?)
    It developers into a jealousy, or control event. (please explain- are you saying violence is caused by either those two and no other factor?)
    A completely different dynamic. (it seems like it)
    The oxytocin abuser scenarios (this i where you lost me) are not male violence scenarios until the end of the relationship. (And here two)
    In court it will be presented as him always being violent and emotionally controlling. (fact agreed upon)
    It’s not a one sided view. It’s biology.(pretend you are talking to a 3 year old and run that by me again, please)

  87. JustCurious says:

    From link below — Tend and befriend as a response to flight or fight scenario

    http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/mccarthy.html

    Taylor et al. (2000) first proposed the idea of a unique female stress response which they termed “tend-and-befriend.” The tend-and-befriend response is characterized as an oxytocin mediated stress response cascade. There are numerous biochemical and evolutionary explanations for this unique female stress response that would have increased the survival of females and their offspring under conditions of stress and hence increased the chances of subsequent reproduction. Estrogen has been found to increase the effects of oxytocin already in excess in females as compared with males. Testosterone and vasopressin, the counterparts of estrogen and oxytocin, present during the male stress response, “fight-or-flight,” have been found to exhibit the opposite effects of oxytocin.

    Interesting

    Befriending can have numerous advantages for a female � first and foremost is the protection it provides for the female and her offspring. Not only are groups more likely to overcome a threat than an individual, but a predator is less likely to attack a mother in a group because of the potential aid of the other group members decreases the chances of the predator winning a fight. This advantage is seen throughout evolution as members of a group were more likely to survive than those attempting to survive on their own. Hence, evolutionarily, group living and befriending of others of the same species has been selected for rather than against in natural selection (Taylor et al., 2000).

    Conclusion
    The male fight-or-flight response is inherently different from the female tend-and-befriend response. The male stress response most likely evolved as a protective measure to ensure the survival of the male. If the male was likely to overcome the threat he would fight whereas if the threat was unlikely to be overcome the male would flee. Females with the same stress response as the male model would be unable to defend themselves while caring for offspring and be unable to flee promptly since they would have to move their offspring away efficiently. Taylor et al. (2000) propose the tend-and-befriend female stress response as an evolutionary solution to this problem that would have been selected for in natural selection. Females who retained the fight-or-flight response would have decreased chances of surviving and hence decreased likelihood of their offspring survival and reproduction. The formation of female networks that would ensure the care of offspring and aid in the defense if a threat were present would have been selected for in natural selection since it would increase the likelihood of survival. Animal experimental evidence as well as human models supports Taylor et al.’s (2000) hypotheses as a feasible evolutionary and biochemical mechanism to ensure female and offspring survival.

    AS strange as i seems it seems this above study confirms men are either violent (warriors/fight) or cowards (flight) in stressful situations and women are more conciliatory in the same situation.

  88. DJ Ward says:

    Here is the evidence of its release at orgasim in men.
    Like you finding the figures is a task.
    Most of what you’ll find is sociology based on the female perspective.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16436468

    The figure I used came from Prof Michael Gurain in one of his books on boys. From brain chemistry research.

  89. DJ Ward says:

    Here it is but it’s not 1000% it’s about 520% based on this study.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3654918

    Still significant, considering its profound effect on judgement etc.

  90. JustCurious says:

    THank you dj- Would you please explain it’s impact on men, relationships and domestic violence?
    I am trying to understand where you are coming from (Oxytocin abusers scenario?)

  91. DJ Ward says:

    Ok. So oxytocin increases trust, helps men create emotional memories, makes us view our partner as more attractive than they are, helps men be monogamous, etc etc.

    In regard the the oxytocin abuser it works like this.

    The female is not in love with the male but acts on his advances.

    The sex creates the trust and bonding as well as blinding the male to the real character of the female.
    She can then manipulate the male into bad decisions.
    Sex is the mechanism of control and rejection is the mechanism to extort her needs.
    Eventually because the relationship is not love but manipulation the relationship ends badly.
    The male feels an immense sense of betrayal as he has given so much based on lies and manipulation.

    Hence domestic violence is a resultant at relationship breakup.
    The male may still be obsessed but he is no longer useful to her.
    Since rejection is followed by reward, he still try’s to make up falling fowl of protection orders etc.
    The male may suicide.

    Difficult to grasp JC but sticks out like dogs balls when you see it happening.

  92. JustCurious says:

    You are right DJ
    It is not easy to grasp for me.
    I think my peeping tom nature precludes me from ever getting a full picture.

  93. Evan Myers says:

    Trump says Pence to be his running mate in 2020

    And there’s every chance he’ll win a second term.

    The likely flow on is Feminist will concentrate there collective action in New Zealand.

    It’s a quaint little South Pacific nation just ripe for the picking.

  94. JustCurious says:

    Hi DJ –

    Have had a thought about the Oxytocin abuser scenario.
    I have to admit it is something I have real difficulty grasping.
    And this for no other reason than it is one explanation in a myriad of other regarding violence in relationships.
    I must admit I am not convinced and it kinda defeats all my preconceived ideas, thoughts and experience of Domestic violence.
    Perhaps I am brainwashed by feminist propaganda so I must be careful.

    These are my thoughts currently

    If this scenario is valid then it appears neither the man nor the woman is aware of the real dynamics to their relationship.

    Also, the incidence of violence you refer to seem to only happen after rejection of the man out of the relationship. It appears you are saying the catalyst to violence is the rejection of the man at the end.

    However my focus was in violence in the relationship and during the relationship. And the cause to the end of the relationship /separation

  95. JustCurious says:

    Further it appears you are saying that sex brings trust and sex is the way to trap men into relationships just so they can be manipulated by their female counterparts. ( I do partially agree for some)

    However When I look at the stats in regards to promiscuity, porn, drunken binges and all kinds of perverse sexual activities going on from the church all the way to parliament, sex is not only an industry but such a random, natural and casual occurrence nowadays; it is hard to apply this scenario to the vast majority of people – in so far as oxytocin, trust.

    It could possibly be applied to Bennet/Ross – older woman, young upcoming hunk… or to relationships between people of different economical classes or different levels of power (whereby a young clerk might submit herself to advances form an older man in a powerful position to seek protection and favours and thus overtime establish a reversal of power and control).

    But then these incidences, even though rampant often only work in a context of affairs and generally extra marital scenarios.

  96. Downunder says:

    @14 Keith, as you say above …

    “The media is always male negative and promotional about feminism, to the degree of not only Femsplaining, but telling factual deliberate inexactitudes. I realised watching the news yesterday was pointless.”

    That is the part we agree on.

    Why would you take rubbish news like this and create a mirror site to express some form of grumpy old man’s view. It’s as bad as posting endless links of Feminist media to menz and butt ching, butt ching, butt ching, about it, while adding to the click bait.

    Immediately above HIDDEN in these comments is NEWS and that should be a post by the author who did the work, with a … post title that is likely to match what a person seeking that information might search.

    That is the part we disagree on.

    My answer to this is still the same.

    Stop reacting to the bullshit and start being the real news.

  97. Kiwi Keith says:

    Downunder @98:- Reversing thing in order to hilight how ridiculous is the original this lampooning, is a commonly used effective tactic. I also point out that it was just a suggestion and that I encouraged others with better ideas to present them, and I woulid support them. I don’tt see your improvement on the idea, or better suggestion. Just another knocking. I can always count on getting a negative response from Downunder. In my view he kills off most every expression of engergy arising on this site.

  98. JustCurious says:

    @99

    It’s already been tried before
    What?
    Every thing
    Including what I propose?
    Every thing
    What do you suggest?
    I do not suggest
    What do you propose then?
    I do not make propositions
    Why are you commenting then?
    To let you know it’s already been tried.
    Any info as to what went wrong?
    Search this site, google is your friend.
    So no suggestion, no proposition, no information?
    I did not say that!
    What are you saying then?
    That it’s already been tried before
    Are you saying it will never work?
    It’s been tried?
    What has been tried?
    Every thing you suggested
    What can we do then?
    Fight feminism
    How?
    Read my posts
    These insults and comments denigrating women and confusing terrorrism with feminism?
    You idiot! newsworthy items corrupted by feminists media.
    So you are rectifying the record?
    Exactly! my version of the news are the only ones worth reading.
    Aaah ~ are you a journalist ?
    I guess you could say that. I am the voice of the men the news do not voice
    IS this your site?
    NO
    Are you contributing to it?
    Yes ~ of Course
    I mean financially?
    No you idiot. It’s John’s site. But do a google search and you will see all my footprints.
    Aaah, you mean your posts and comments?
    Exactly!!!
    Can you link me to where my ideas have been discussed previously on this site?
    Do a google search
    Why are you so obtuse? and mystify everything?
    I do not know what you mean
    How about defeatist and obstructive?
    You are an idiot.
    See? insulting and rude, do you have hemorroids?
    Yes, but that’s not why I am rude
    So you accept being rude?
    I would say I am truthful. Too many gullible idiots out there. We can’t let that corrupt media win.
    How come you do not want the men to get organized?
    I do but tit’s been tried before.
    So you think men will never unite?
    Leave my thoughts alone.
    Do you believe it?
    Leave my beliefs alone.
    How about your posts and comments, can I comment on them?
    Of course, but if you disagree, I will call you an idiot or a male feminist.
    ,,,
    ,,,

  99. JustCurious says:

    animals are beautiful people 🙂

  100. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    Quotes from DJ Ward above:

    @87 “Never mention Vasopressin, as it explains females withdrawing consent during sex and why often males can’t stop. Agian 100% not the mans fault.”

    @93 “Eventually because the relationship is not love but manipulation the relationship ends badly. The male feels an immense sense of betrayal as he has given so much based on lies and manipulation. Hence domestic violence is a resultant at relationship breakup.”

    I’ve read some disturbing things on this site, but those two statements are the worst so far. Sorry DJ but being an apologist for rape and domestic violence is harmful, dangerous and frankly disgusting. I have never continued with sex after consent is withdrawn and nor have I ever engaged in any domestic violence, no matter how much I was provoked. Research shows that the vast majority of men (about 85%) are just like me. Good men who never, ever, harm women or children (or other men for that matter). Rapists and abusers are not ‘normal’ and nor are these things explained by biology. Those abhorrent behaviours are the actions of deeply disturbed individuals, most of whom had deeply disturbed childhoods.

    Your justifying these things by using a spurious and totally unscientific explanation of the role of some hormones in human behaviour strikes me as a delusional denial of personal responsibility. I’m surprised that other men on this site or in your life haven’t taken you to one side and said, “Mate, those ideas are just plain bonkers. You need help.”

  101. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @95 Evan says:

    “The likely flow on is Feminist will concentrate there collective action in New Zealand. It’s a quaint little South Pacific nation just ripe for the picking.”

    Really Evan? The feminists in the US will pretty give up there if Trump wins and concentrate their efforts on NZ? Evan, if you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need to get a grip on your conspiracy theories.

  102. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @72 Downunder says:

    “There was no change to the post, no nuance to the story. But obviously you were not capable of a unified approach, only one that met your approval.”

    Except there was a change to the post that did in fact add nuance. It’s not my approval you need to meet Downunder, it’s basic standards of reason and logic.

  103. Man X Norton says:

    @103, 104, 105. Oh wise high and mighty one, go and tell your offensive put downs to someone who cares. Feminist sites would suit.

  104. mama says:

    103, Audi says

    Rapists and abusers are not ‘normal’ and nor are these things explained by biology. Those abhorrent behaviours are the actions of deeply disturbed individuals, most of whom had deeply disturbed childhoods.

    …you know, the men I have heard and know, that have been caught up in the system are good men , none of them exist at the extremes you seem obsessed by.

    The punitive way of dealing with these good men is however set on extreme, that is apparantly what you are obsessed with.

  105. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @107 Hi Mama,

    Yes, I am pretty obsessed (I guess) with how horrifically good men are treated in ways that are extreme in deeming them extremely bad in blatant disregard to their obvious goodness, and with how frequently this happens, and how horrific are the consequences.

    I find abhorrent the feminist position of deeming all men bad and all women good.

    But! I cannot in good conscience do that and not find equally abhorrent suggestions on this site that all men are good and all women are bad.

    Your experience of good men viciously attacked by misandrists aligns with my experience. But even taken together our experiences are a sample size of only n = 2. The empirical data suggests that about 85% of both men and women don’t engage in any domestic abuse at all. The remaining 15% are split equally between male and female abusers.

    My concerns about this are four-fold:

    Firstly about completely innocent men (part of the 85%) who are deemed abusers just because they are men.

    Secondly about the data that shows that most abuse is very minor and very infrequent. The “if he hit you once he will hit you again” mantra is not borne out by the data. Relationship difficulties that include minor violence can often heal with good quality counselling but feminist counsellors won’t allow couples’s counselling if they deem that there has been any violence at all, including mutual pushing and shoving that is always deemed the man’s fault.

    Thirdly about the 2.5% of truly abusive women who get no help at all with their personal problems because in the dominant feminist world view they simply cannot be perpetrators.

    Fourthly about the 2.5% of truly abusive men who get no help with their problems because they are ‘treated’ with a completely debunked Duluth model that ignores their real problems and focuses instead on an erroneous belief in feminist dogma that holds the “patriarchy” as being the cause of intimate partner abuse.

  106. Evan Myers says:

    @104 it is hard when you’re playing catch up and we are doing our best to make allowances for you. It would help if you could get over your wallowing in self indulgence.

  107. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @109 Thanks for your forbearance Evan and for that of your collegiate. I’ll keep trying my best to get over myself.

  108. DJ Ward says:

    @Audi.

    I did not make a cliam that rape was OK. You made that up in your own mind. The biology of Vasperessin is well understood. My comment was one of “This is a fact”. In your mind you make an assumption that I am trying to find an excuse for rape. A fact does not create an excuse it’s just the facts. A woman attacked that was walking in a park is a rape victim. It could be true that Vasperessin might be at higher levels in him than normal, hence the inability to control sexual urges. When two people go home on a one night stand. Consent all the way. Clothes removed, for play, penetrative sex. Then….

    Vasperessin in high levels in the male to enable ejaculation. He is at about 100% for brain chemistry controlling actions.
    Females can have a reaction with high levels of Vasperessin as it exits the males skin.
    The females sex chemicals can respond to the Vasperessin by causing her sex drive to zero quickly.
    This is biological. It defends females from the pretend lover. The male just their for the root is likely to have high levels to achieve ejaculation. A genuine stick around partner may have less. Some women experience the effect of Vasperessin most times they engage in sex.

    So Audi. It’s not justifying rape. Rape is the guy in the park and many others.
    Rape requires an intentional decision.
    A one night stand that in the last 30 seconds goes terribly wrong was not intentional.
    There was no intent from the beginning to rape.
    The time limit is not defined.

    Ultimately Audi nothing will ever be achieve anything if we are required to not presents facts.
    Just because people interpret facts wrong.
    Or facts make partipants uncomfortable in events that have taken place.
    Like calling a male a rapist in these scenarios.
    Or ignoring the fact that the females biological response triggered the following event.
    The event started with her actions. Not his.

    Are females taught that this biology response can take place.
    When there sex drive plummets during consential sex they have the knowledge of why.
    And respond so the rape never takes place.
    Because in those late withdrawing of consent situations, men’s lives can be destroyed.

    The only punishment for the woman is bad sex. And a tearful few hours in court.

    Audi I did not condone or justify Domestic Violence. I described it as a resultant. Specific in a narrow group of inherently abusive relationships. I used the term Oxytocin abusers. You might use the term cock teasers, or she’s got him by the balls. Now describing the group, or female behavour in your mind is wrong. I was explaining domestic violence as a resultant of domestic violence.

    Audi you seem to have decided that domestic violence is only committed by men.
    I was describing something that is a real experience for many young men. Many are being used and manipulated by females. The ‘in your mind’ prescription of domestic violence is hitting someone. You expressed that with your comment.
    The domestic violence is the females act.
    The resultant is the physical violence. I did not condone the males violence.
    I explained what scientists understand is happening in that scenario.
    Plus we all undeniably have these chemistry issues.

    Take one step back Audi.
    Then you will be ready to take two steps forward.

  109. mama says:

    #108,, Hi Audi,,, Some people, men mainly, do live and breath to help in the realm of mens rights and surrounding issues.

    Then there are the ones that have no choice but to live and breath it, bugger calling these good men victims, they have been trashed and it leaves you angry and distraught.

    The trouncing method of communication you often use here does not wash.

    …and a for instance ,@ 95,, Evan Above,,,poses something and you trounce it. The world is so small now that it is not inconceivable for lil’ ol’ NZ to being a HUB/showcase for feminism itself…but his was a beginning to a discussion or questioning and you trounced it,,, ??????

  110. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @111 I take my hat off to you DJ. I gave you quite a serve and you have responded respectfully and by sticking to the issue at hand. I think that’s commendable. Which of course doesn’t mean that I agree with you, but it gives us something concrete to debate.

    One of the things I learned from Murray Straus is how much feminists falsify domestic abuse ‘statistics’. As a result I’ve become even more skeptical when anybody makes claims about facts as supported by science. Don’t get me wrong, I love science, but it needs to be done properly, and it needs to be challenged by robust peer reviews.

    So, following your comments about oxytocin and vasopressin, I did a bit of my own study and found this to be one of the most relevant academic articles:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5743651/

    They sure are a couple of fascinating peptides and when taken in the context of pre-existing proclivities they might at times cause the sort of responses you are suggesting. What I can’t find anywhere is any empirical data that would suggest that those sort of responses are common let alone biologically or psychologically inevitable. From the article above it seems that there are many more variables that you have not taken into consideration. I stand to be corrected by this, but if you are going to prove “facts” then you will need to provide evidence.

    Which brings me to your point that I made up in my mind that you were being a rape apologist. You said “Never mention Vasopressin, as it explains females withdrawing consent during sex and why often males can’t stop. Agian 100% not the mans fault” There are some big problems with saying that. Firstly vasopressin is only one of numerous reasons why a woman may withdraw consent. Close to climax a man may indeed be overwhelmed with all manner of hormones, but in NZ law we don’t automatically excuse crimes of passion. The passion, and timing of any withdrawal of consent, along with the entire context would no doubt be taken into consideration by any Court. To suggest then that it is 100% not the man’s fault because some hormones were at play is missing the point. In some circumstances he may be not at fault and in others at fault. Guilt or innocence of the crime of rape depends on a far bigger picture than just some of many hormones at play at the time.

    Having said all that, I did find interesting how the influence of vasopressin, along with other circumstances, could lead to anxiety, fear and aggression. That may explain to some extent the phenomenon of false rape allegations.

    I certainly don’t believe that intimate partner abuse (IPA) is committed only by men. I myself was a long term victim of abuse perpetrated by my wife, and I believe the overwhelming evidence that shows IPA is gender neutral. You are putting forward an argument where a woman provokes a man and he is violent in response. Fair enough, but in those circumstances many men have sufficient self-control not to respond and regardless that is only a small proportion of the causes of IPA. You have, for example, left out the times that a man does nothing at all to deserve being attacked but is attacked nonetheless, and vice versa. One of the most significant causes of IPA is not provocation, or gender, but disturbed childhood experiences from the perpetrator’s family of origin.

  111. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @112. You make a valid point Mama. I’ve been doing a lot of “trouncing” on this site. I do however like the way you finish with a lot of question marks and guess that means genuine curiosity – if not with a pinch of incredulity?

    The simple answer is in the sidebar to this site. I’ve taken the Black Ribbon Pledge. I’m not going to remain silent about violence towards children, men and women.

    Yes, there are many hurt men on this site. The sad fact though is that hurt people are more likely to go on and hurt others. It seems to me that when the hurt people on this site express their hurt in ways that will hurt others, there is very little by way of challenge to that. I’m trying to be a spanner in the works of recycling hurt.

    Evan’s comments were pure conspiracy theory. People look at that and think men’s rights advocates are nutters. Men’s rights advocates don’t then get listened to. There is then even more prejudice against men. Then more men suffer and more men die. I’m not trying to pick on Evan. I’m trying to give men’s rights sufficient credence to start making a difference.

  112. JustCurious says:

    hmmm… Your last paragraph Audi at 114 is empty of facts
    They are filled with misapprehensions, prejudice and non sequiturs
    And effectively apologetic when at the same time inconsiderate towards Ewan’s contributions.

    Clever use of words but empty of compromise and devoid of consideration for any other contribution than for your own. But your own conclusions are suspect and do not derive from any evidence proferred. Rather; platitudes are offered instead of any real fact.

    Listening is not just an ideal in a conversation. It is the vehicle to communication.

    I do however apprehend and comprehend your drive even though I do have to admit I do not understand your driven urgency in changing the speech of thee forum dwellers.

    “I’m trying to give men’s rights sufficient credence to start making a difference.”

    Sadly the way you put it identify you as separate from the group you are trying to help.

    It starts with- “I am trying to give men”

    It should have been something of the likes of …

    “I would like us men to make a difference in our common plea…by raising our standard in speech so that we can invite a tempered discussion over many pertinent issues affecting men without appearing to be grumpy old men filled with invectives and spoilt hurt..”

    Effectively it means you are a not just a benevolent benefactor taking men under your wings as a hobby but rather one of the victims supporting the rest in their healing and mending towards a better world.

    And I am pretty certain that is essentially what you are trying to say?

  113. JustCurious says:

    Further statistics are the most inaccurate of all sciences – in fact, it’s not even a science as we now know it. It is at the same level as reporting and the trends belongs to whomever pays the most for the data manipulation to favour them.

    And example is the police reporting all cases having an element of domestic violence as an incident of domestic violence. If the resorting parameters are so arbitrary, would you trust the results?

    So to give credence to such figures is the same as expecting the policemean to pay yer ticket.

    Surveys have the same level of disrepute as statistics obtained from surveys often rely on people self reporting and only seldom contain any veracity. No way to verify the truth of anyone’s statement except through third party verification.

    Even if that is obtained, too many emotional ways of people self tampering or moderating their own answers in avoidance of causing shame and or in fear of negative reprisal from those they report on.

    Studies are the next least flawed methods. However to find a sample population replicating exactly the social distribution and economical ratios as well as the educo-politico-religious influences and allegiances and programming in each individual is near impossible. And especially in light of the above.

    Another point to always keep in mind is the cheque book of the institution providing the funding for such studies and what that money was accepted in exchange of.

    Who pays for studies, surveys, statistics?

    Governments (to aid in policy) , lobby groups (to assist in policy orientation), cigarette inddutries ( rebut health claims), advertising (psychology and behaviour-mind control, subliminal messaging), the pharmaceutical (clinical trials to whitewash the side effects) and so on…

    The above of course does not mean all the numbers reported are wrong. I am however certainly dubious of the use we make of statistics.

  114. JustCurious says:

    This effectively is your take Audi:

    “You have, for example, left out the times that a man does nothing at all to deserve being attacked but is attacked nonetheless, and vice versa. One of the most significant causes of IPA is not provocation, or gender, but disturbed childhood experiences from the perpetrator’s family of origin.”

    The below effectively identify you as a pro anti smacking law – but one without any effective understanding of the real issues raised oh so many times already here.

    “One of the most significant causes of IPA is not provocation, or gender, but disturbed childhood experiences from the perpetrator’s family of origin.”

    You essentially disregard what every one else says and still repeat the above mantra which is a very feminist thing to do.

    There is no judge currently sitting on these benches that has not been hit once or twice by their parents.

    There is essentially no adult NZes our age bracket that has not been part of corporal discipline as punishment in their youth. Whether it was direct on them or witnessed.

    Effectively that mantra is invalidated by the fact that both men and women equally, at some stage in their lives have suffered from corporal punishment.

    Incidentally, repeating this mantra as a possible reason to cast aspersion against people whom have genuine issues and concerns about this same law effectively reduces these people to malignant complainants instead of genuine victims.

    This mantra is used to support a law you still fail to acknowledge as causing harm to the nation and to the family.

    It appears your belief is that the system is perfect and even when unlawfully prosecuted, if one is innocent, one will prevail. And if not one can appeal.

    I think DJ Ward was very eloquent in listing motives for such a prosecution to be used to legally kidnap one’s progeny and use them as ransom (in divorce cases, separation, cheating spouse, safety orders, protection orders, expropriation, alienation, asset forfeiture, the list is endless…)

    And it seems all efforts to see the other side of the consequences of such prosecution in one’s life and relationship with his children and family is lost on you.

    The anger is real and this one is closer to despair than rage. And to ask men not to express it without offering a way to individually channel it may cause more harm than good.

  115. mama says:

    …and that was from The Right HONOURABLE JUDGE CURIOUS….and on that note we kick off the day with Hellelujah….

  116. Downunder says:

    @113

    “I certainly don’t believe that intimate partner abuse (IPA) is committed only by men. I myself was a long term victim of abuse perpetrated by my wife, and I believe the overwhelming evidence that shows IPA is gender neutral.”

    Where is the overwhelming evidence that IPA is gender-neutral?

    I don’t imagine you were born a pathetic little bitch, so the obvious impact we’re seeing in your case would be gender-specific.

  117. JustCurious says:

    just had a stupid question.
    If this post is titled 15 years of feminist stupidity.
    Does it mean everything herein is feminist stupidity?

  118. mama says:

    who knows,,, but just now on the way home we passed a an old silver cloud and the man behind the wheel wore a stetson,,, no kidding,,,, made me think of all the cowboys and how sorely missed they would be if we were to lose them forever,,,

  119. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @119. Pretty darn rotten thing to say Downunder. I divulge being a long-term victim of female perpetrated intimate partner abuse and you call me a “pathetic little bitch”.

    I suggest that the issue of male victims of female perpetrated abuse is currently one the greatest areas of discrimination against men and the area where men are the most harmed. It is a zone of utter hopelessness for men. Feminists re-victimise male victims by deeming them the perpetrator, and men (leastways the all too common real-tough-men like Downunder) treat male victims like they are crap. Male victims of intimate abuse can’t turn to women for help and they can’t turn to men for help. Male victims of intimate partner abuse would I suggest make up a significant number of male suicides. This is not going to get better until more people take the Black Ribbon Pledge and tell people like Downunder that saying things like that is just plain not okay.

  120. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @118 Sorry Mama but in the words of the late great Leonard Cohen yours is going to be a sad and broken Hallelujah. The rather judgmental (not judicious) Judge Curious is going to be found wanting on appeal.

  121. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @115 to 117.

    Sorry JC but there is a litany of errors in your comments as follows:

    My last paragraph at 114 did not cite all the supporting evidence (I was not writing a legal submission – I was writing a comment on a web site) but that does not mean that it was untrue, misapprehended, prejudicial or illogical. I do not resile from my opinion that Evan’s comment was a barking mad, paranoid, delusional conspiracy theory. If you disagree with me then please show even the tiniest bit of evidence that there is some international or US based cabal of feminists that direct efforts away from one western (feminists for some reason give Muslims a free pass) country to another. [Feminist are so successful because they work in interconnected cells, not under a central command structure.] For evidence of how men’s rights activists are viewed look at the Red Pill documentary, the refusal to screen it in public theatres, the interviews of Cassie Jay by Australian media, the response to the March for Men in Melbourne earlier this year, and the response to Warren Farrell trying to give a Lecture about male suicide in the University of Toronto, etc. etc. If you don’t understand the dynamics of social psychology (how in-groups reinforce their contempt for out-groups) (as with feminists being ever more emboldened in denying rights and causing harm to men) then take a look at the work of Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram et al. As to being inconsiderate towards Evan’s contributions, you operate on an appalling double standard. I strongly challenge what Evan says and you call me inconsiderate. Downunder calls me a “pathetic little bitch” after I reveal that I have been the victim of abuse and you fall to silence.

    Do some study JC and you will find that what I’m saying is not platitudes but empirically supported.

    I used “I” because I was replying to Mama who had questioned me about what “I” had written. There is no “we’ about it. I do not identify, or ever wish to identify, with the misogynists on this site – but I do feel sympathy for their sad tragic pathetic lives.

    Yes, studies and statistics are often flawed. But there are ways of comparing the academic robustness of differing methodologies. If you throw out all science then you will be welcomed into the arms of the post-modern feminists. They love denying science as being a tool of the patriarchy.

    When I mentioned “disturbed childhood experiences” I was not referring to smacking children. I was referring to growing up in an environment where physical, emotional or sexual abuse is normalised. I have “come out” on this site as being strongly opposed to smacking children. That is different to being “pro anti smacking laws”. Your linking my statement about disturbed childhood experiences to my previous statements about smacking children is your projection, not my intention nor my language.

    I do indeed disregard (at least to the extent of not sycophantically agreeing with) what many people say on this site. I disagree when people extrapolate their personal experience and often dubious conclusions into a wider theorem. Study Murray Straus, Donald Dutton and John Hamel et al, and then come back and try and tell me there is any paucity of evidence showing the influence of family of origin and lack of influence of gender on acts of intimate partner violence. To suggest that these points of view are “feminist” shows your naivety about the influence of gender politics on the field of IPA. These views are diametrically opposed to the feminist view that IPA is caused by a social construct called the patriarchy.

    I have no mantra about smacking in this context. I was as above talking about abuse, not smacking.

    You say, “a law causing harm to the nation and the family”. Really? My wife (at the time) and I raised 4 children into high-functioning, well-adjusted adults without ever laying a finger on them. What harm to the nation and the family? Besides which, this is a men’s site that supports men’s issues not a pro-smacking site. I have yet to hear a single cogent argument put forward by anyone on this site why smacking children should be a men’s rights issue, let alone how smacking children is good for them.

    I have never ever said that the system is perfect or that the innocent will prevail. Systems will never be perfect. What I am proposing thought is action to make it far more likely that the innocent will prevail, and this in my opinion will involve tackling prejudice.

    I am baffled and frankly angry at your suggestion that the consequences of unlawful prosecutions of men is lost on me. Fuck off with your disparaging shit! I feel those men’s pain deeply. I have experienced very similar pain myself and I am determined to make a difference.

    I’m not asking men not to express their pain, despair or rage. I’m asking them to consider more carefully their conclusions about the causes of the problem and by extension what to do about the problem. Spending the rest of our lives as a key-board-warriors moaning about “stupid bitches” and hatching conspiracy theories just proves Einstein right and there won’t be a different result.

    While I’m at it – I’m totally over being deemed arrogant. I (along with a few other people for that matter) have some ideas that are different than a lot of other ideas suggested on this site. I think those ideas are better than some of the more common ideas on this site. That doesn’t make me an arrogant person. It makes me a person with a different opinion. Suggesting that I’m arrogant is just a cop-out from arguing the issues.

    I rest my case your honour.

  122. Downunder says:

    It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah

  123. JustCurious says:

    You are right Audi
    you are committed and determined to make a change.

    I in fact hear you and agree with you.

    You are right men need to muster their speech.

    SO I invite you to muster your speech with me
    And maybe we could be the start to that change?

  124. Audi Alteram Partem says:

    @127: Thanks JC.

  125. Evan Myers says:

    Get a grip on my conspiracy theories?

    Anyone can go to the library and read Clinton’s Book and make their own mind up.

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