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.

68 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?

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