Gender War Newsreel December 2018
Whenever you look you will find in the news media many examples of discrimination against men. Let’s look at some recent ones.
Here’s the first interesting example. The headline states ‘From Brazilian beach to Kiwi prison: Young mum preyed on by international drugs cartels’. Well, ok, but actually Ms Nascimento agreed to be paid to smuggle around 1kg of cocaine into NZ in and on her body, and she had done at least one similar drug run before. However, our first concern about this story was the headline. Stories about male offenders almost never mention their parental status. That would humanize them in the public’s eyes and would contradict the desired message that men are bad. But female offenders are often referred to as ‘young mum’, ‘mother of two’ or similar. That is clearly intended to stimulate compassion in the readers and to protect popular beliefs about women being good. The article about Ms Nascimento continued as an appalling example of excusing a female criminal and portraying her as the victim here. ‘A mystery meeting on a Brazilian beach has led to a young mum of two being locked up in prison..’ No, actually her decision to break the law led to her imprisonment. She ‘lost her eldest brother in a shooting two years ago’. Our condolences but that’s not an excuse for her criminal behaviour. She used her money from previous offending ‘to help pay her bills and raise her two young children, aged 5 and 4’. Well, so do many of your neighbourhood burglars; so what? Also, how does anyone really know what she spends her ill-gotten gains on? Also, there’s no mention of the children’s father; oh yeah, we forgot, fathers are irrelevant. The female judge said she had much sympathy and gave her a discounted sentence for personal circumstances. No minimum parole period so she’ll be back home after a third of her sentence, ready to agree to some more criminal activities for profit. The judge said ‘The discount is as much for the children as it is for Ms Nascimento”. Well isn’t that nice, but why don’t fathers and their children get anything like the same kindness in our Courts? Everyone involved seems to have run to the rescue of this criminal woman, something no male who offended similarly would be likely to see. The Brazilian consulate helped her to remain in contact with her family. The Customs investigator rode on his white knight horse to protect Ms Nascimento’s honour by blaming Mexican drug cartels for her behaviour, stating “The cartels don’t care about the couriers, this is about money.” Wow, who would have thought that about those nice drug cartel people? But for Ms Nascimento it was all about money too, no other reason. But let’s not besmirch the image of the female gender, huh?
In this article we were again treated to the ridiculous claim that women will be working for free for the last two months of the year because of the gender pay gap. On that reasoning, if you compare our earnings with that of lawyers and surgeons most of us will work for free from about March. If you compare us with Bill Gates, most of us will work for free from about 30 seconds into New Years Day. Aside from the false reasoning, Ms Hawkesby’s arithmetic is also false. The gender pay gap is around 9.5% which equates to just over one month out of a year, not two. That’s the nature of war propaganda which Ms Hawkesby then uses to try to guilt trip men into becoming white knights riding for higher female wages. Incidentally, the article on the gender wage gap gives some interesting insights.
Then there’s this. The workplace death gender gap is well over 90%. More men each year commit suicide than our total male and female road tolls and homicide tolls combined. NZ men are imprisoned in high numbers and the gender imprisonment gap is also over 90%. Men die about 5 years younger than women on average. But how often do we hear media mention any of these things in terms of male disadvantage? No, instead our public and media react with great concern and energy about the terrible news that an intermediate school asked girls to ‘bring a plate’ to the annual school social this year. As is often pointed out by Professor Janice Fiamengo, feminists constantly take offence at trivial matters with which they feed their victimhood delusions. It turned out that the school alternated year-by-year between asking the boys or the girls to bring snacks in return for which they pay about half the entry fee. But you can be sure it still won’t be acceptable to many feminists.
This article informs us that if you separate, the ex will get half your Kiwisaver superannuation that you have paid and otherwise has increased since the start of the relationship. It’s a timely reminder that if you want to retain ownership of that sports car you did up long before meeting your partner, or that family bach you inherited, or anything else you had, then keep your partner well away from those things. Keep those assets totally separate from your relationship. Don’t use the same lawnmower for that property and the one you share with your partner. If you so much as take your partner for a ride in that car, use it to get to work where you earn money contributing to the relationship. or point out that bach to your partner whilst driving past, it will become ‘relationship property’ and your partner will get half its value. Or considerably more than half under Auntie Helengrad’s innovative ways of legalizing additional theft by women from men.
And here’s an interesting story. 29 years ago this woman Terri Friesen (incidentally described as a ‘Taranaki mum’) confessed to shaking her baby to death. For this she was sentenced to 6 months’ supervision and she was allowed to keep her other daughter. However, 13 years later the baby’s father formally confessed to having done the crime. The ‘mum’ has now gone to Court and had her conviction removed. She provided several claimed reasons for her initial confession and guilty plea in Court but they don’t sound convincing. We suspect that she took the rap because she knew that as a woman she would get a very light sentence while her partner was the wrong gender for that. And she was right. She probably also knew that if he were convicted of the crime then CYFS would remove her other child should she dare to associate with him further. When the man was convicted after his confession the judge sent him to jail for 3 years and said the crimes (manslaughter and perjury) deserved 9 years. So exactly the same crime if done by a male deserves years of imprisonment but when done by a female she has to pop in to chat with the probation officer every few weeks for a total of 6 months. And when the same crime is committed by a woman she may well get to remain a full parent to her other children whereas no father could expect that. A female law student helped Ms Friesen to end the ’30 years of false conviction’ and the headline stated ‘Justice 30 years later for Terri Friesen…’. Well, yes but actually she received perfectly reasonable (and very generous) justice 30 years ago on the basis of her confession and guilty plea. We have another remaining question: Why wasn’t Ms Friesen convicted of perjury like her male partner was? She lied in Court as much or more than he did. Oh sorry, we keep forgetting, women are the superior gender and should be treated much better before the law than men are.
We could go on with numerous more stories from the war against men. But let’s finish this newsreel with another amazing example of police favouritism towards women. Two women went door to door offering arboricultural services. They probably had no qualifications for this but, hey, they’re women, girls can do anything (and get away with it). A man at one of the houses they visited told them to go away. His female partner subsequently saw the two women on video surveillance looking around the property, so she posted images of this on social media to warn others that she thought they weren’t legit. The nice women then sent her a message saying “We know where you live. We’re coming over for you motherfucker and cut your fuckin head off.” Now when a man threatens to kill or cause grievous bodily harm he is very likely to be sent to prison because the punitive tariff is 7 years imprisonment. And then there’s the Harmful Digital Communications Act which provides for 2 years imprisonment or a $50G fine (and/or $200G for the company). But these were women. The female police officer involved must have believed (with some justification) that these laws were only intended to apply to men. So she decided that the threat had been hollow, there was no danger to the mum, it was a typical example of trash talk on social media, blah blah blah. Never mind that the person they threatened was very frightened because the offenders did know where she lived. Strangely, the female police officer said “It’s a couple of young women talking nonsense who will be held accountable for their actions”. Oh yeah, tough policing, accountability for these women was that they had to say sorry!
We realize that war newsreels are meant to provide uplifting reports about how well our side is doing. Sorry, couldn’t find any.
And presto! We have another story repeatedly highlighting the parental status of a criminal female. The headline was: ‘Young solo mum jailed for sexually exploiting 14-year-old’. The fact she was a solo mum appeared to be quite irrelevant to her offending done as part of her business role in running a prostitution racket. And at 21 years old she wasn’t particularly young. She sold an unrelated 14yo emotionally vulnerable girl to customers for sex, knowing her date of birth but deliberately falsifying it. Interestingly, the article links to other stories one of which was headlined ‘Lower Hutt grandmother jailed for ‘vile’ child prostitution plans’ and the other ‘Partner of Auckland mum who kept teen daughter as a sex slave sentenced’. Yes, in both cases the offenders were involved in selling their own progeny for sex, but references to being a grandmother or an ‘Auckland mum’ still served to mitigate the perceived seriousness of their offending. This seems to be the real face of unconscious gender bias. Why not simply report ‘Lower Hutt woman jailed for prostituting granddaughter’ or ‘Partner of Auckland woman who kept teen daughter as a sex slave sentenced?
Is the bias really unconscious?
News media often dramatises news. The distortions that you highlight may be part of their marketing by drama, as much as gender minimising bias?
Either way, the social harm occurs irrespective of the motives behind the media processing.
Playing on fear leads to a lot of overreaction by the public, by police, by judges.
We all need to Get Real.
1, yes Murray might be correct.
Referring to her as young solo mum in the headline may be as much to sensationalise the dramatic plot of the story
More than to minimise her culpability( if I’ve said that right.)
What gets me is why is this woman and the others mentioned who are guilty of these child sex slave crimes and trafficking underage sex workers, exposing and exploiting them for profit not punished- significantly.
And also why is it that some creepy guy who downloads images of underage children to his phone would remain on fale as a registered sex offender for life ( just for looking at pictures) yet these people dsscribed above avoid the registry all together
And are free to harm and exploit children over and over again because they’re considered less predatory.??
Yes it’s possible that headlining terms such as ‘Young mum’ may simply or mainly be to add dramatic effect to the story. But then why wouldn’t a male offender be headlined as “Father of two…” or even “Minimum wage worker…”? The dramatic effect for women is intended and received on the basis of ‘sugar and spice’ beliefs about women and an unconscious tendency to feel protective, understanding and compassionate towards women. For men any dramatic effect in headlines tends to be related to beliefs about men as bogey men and designed to stimulate anger and retributive feelings. These different gender slants on stories are likely to involve a degree of unconscious bias in addition to any deliberate poetic licence.
Why don’t child sex traffickers, enslavers and child pimps make the sex offender database ?
Voices @5:- I get your point. These might be the enablers and organisers, as opposed to the hands on offender – but the law could convict them on a similar basis that they do those people who hire “Hit-men” to do murder. But my big hesitation is that I have no way to know for sure they were involved or are guilty of the offences. Assuming they are actually guilty, then I agree that they should be on the sex offenders register. But so many innocents are accused. There are many on this site. Too many of them are also convicted without any proof and are denied defence or cross examination. So how can we be sure about the guilt of any of them? Don’t we really need a perfect inerrant justice system so we can direct our revulsion at only those who deserve it? Until we have such a justice system, I find myself unable to get involved, even in cases where my gut-feeling is that they might be guilty. I am sure we all would prefer a fair hearing with proper equal procedures under equal law for ourselves – well we have to extend that to all others. The real problem is that legislatin and the course are now instruments of the gener political extremists.
I saw the commonplace litany of rants aside the pages “latest pots: and wondered if we were just a bunch of old ladies watching the clouds and betting on which drop or rain would hit the found first.
But then this post hit me. It speaks volume but frankly, where does it take us?
What changes are we making in our selves?
Are we making a dent otherwise in what seems to be no less than a carefully planned nazi incursion. Men are now wearing the yellow stars.
The downside to blogs is their public image and the idea that they are the newsletter that never infested a letter box, endangered a tree or needed recycling.
The Grace Millane case has inspired the feminist rumble of disquiet and outrage once again but who could respect a mob that place less value on their own dissenting voice than any man.
Evan @9: Not sure what you mean here. We noted that feminist white ribbon type people have been premature in speaking out about domestic violence, the need to respect women etc etc. It wasn’t a domestic violence situation and the causes were unlikely to be comparable to those for domestic violence. More importantly, nobody except the involved authorities and perhaps Ms Millane’s family knows the suspected details and circumstances of this horrible event, and an accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Yes, it is likely that something happened similar to what the public, the white ribboners, Women’s Refugers, Shiners and all the other similar groups assume happened. However, we can’t be sure. Perhaps she tried to kill him and he acted in self-defence. Perhaps he was psychotic. Perhaps she overdosed on drugs and he freaked out and tried to hide the body. The assumed events are more likely but it’s concerning that people would jump making generalized attacks on men on the basis of assumptions.
STUFF today is going strong for Feminism. Headling “Most victims of violent crime in New Zealand are women” – well to my understanding – this item seriously misquotes the true statistics. I always understood that males are by far the biggest group of violence victims. STUFF is pretending that there concocted family violence figures are the whoile story – even though males/fathers are rarely recorded as “victims” even though they very often are.
STUFF’s masthead when I viewed it, had an item about children who were removed from parents. Isn’t Christmas great – a time for family, good will to all men – peace – cheer and charity — Oh spare me !
#10 I think it’s reasonably explained but perhaps a bit hard to believe that two groups of women are seeing each other as a lower form of life than men. This for example from Twitter …
“This is part of why i choose to reject the label of feminist altogether. modern third-wave feminism is a religious cult. it claims to be about female empowerment, but aggressively shames and casts out any women who question or challenge its established narrative. it’s a cult.”
Funny how once men who held strong male views were called male chauvanist pigs, but women with strong feminine views are expected to be respected, hence maybe the above label should apply to them since they instigated it.
I am always amazed at this photo as it’s clearly fake.
Any act of dishonesty is acceptable if persecuting a male on the path of righteousness.
He had fun with his penis.
He must be destroyed.
Clearly a feminist law.
The abuse was horrific.
Her smile clearly shows the depth of her trauma.
Look at the blatant colour difference at her waist.
Her hand is white but his is red.
So is the lady in the background.
His hand on her waist has doubled lines at the fingers.
Her hand shadows the ladies hand but her arm makes no shadow.
Physics has better laws than lawyers.
Shame on the media for publishing this corrupt act.
They paid her money for it, wow.
Shame on the lawyer, gold digger, and enablers.
A lawyer with false judgement.
Bet extortion is a lawyer thing.
Heard she got rich, somehow.
Maybe she and the lawyer need to be interviewed.
By the police.
This was presented in a court of law, as evidence.