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.