Jacinda on the World Stage
Our prime minister told the UN that MeToo should become WeToo. It seems to us to be unbecoming and unwise for a head of state to support the ‘MeToo’ campaign on a world stage.
Well firstly #MeToo involves considerable sexism. It’s a call for women in general to come up with stories about men’s wrongdoing. It’s an attempt to popularize concepts such as toxic masculinity, male privilege and patriarchal power. By expressing support for #MeToo Ms Adern has supported discrimination against men, when she could instead have made more general comments against sexual exploitation that acknowledged it happens to both females and males and is perpetrated by both males and females albeit in different proportions.
#MeToo is sexist also in respect of the special privileges its supporters demand for female accusers while any fairness towards male accused is discarded. Women’s allegations without evidence are expected to be treated as facts. Wrecking the lives and careers of male accused is condoned and expected based on women’s unproven allegations.
Secondly, #MeToo is a form of mob rule without concern for due process of justice or the rights of those accused. There is no empathy for harm done to male accused. Dangerous stuff that would be considered totally unacceptable by Ms Adern if women or most other groups were the ones treated that way.
Thirdly, #MeToo is corrupt. There has been no interest shown by its supporters for the need to prove allegations. Most of the allegations concern events claimed to have happened decades ago but there is no acknowledgement that memories change every time they are recalled and long-term memories will almost always be significantly distorted. Forgetting a few fine details of what and how was said and done can colour events greatly and turn a benign romantic approach into harassment or exploitation. Even more recent memories will be greatly influenced by a person’s subjective emotions at the time, such that (for example) fully consenting participation with some fear of this becoming known to others can easily be recalled as a fearful experience due to the man’s behaviour. That is why careful, logical investigation, Court scrutiny and a standard of proof are so important. The lack of interest shown by supporters of #MeToo for matters of accuracy and honesty amounts to corruption.
Finally, #MeToo is a fad that is quite likely in future to become seen as an embarrassing episode of mass hysteria devoid of reasoning, fairness and human intelligent faculties. At that point, imagine how Ms Adern’s childish word change calling to extend #MeToo will be seen and portrayed.
It’s foolish for Ms Adern to pin her reputation and that of New Zealand on a cause based on such unethical and shaky foundations.
Dangerous territory really.
I doubt she would have said the same thing at the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
If there’s an ego and a hidden agenda, we certainly just saw that.
Our PM engaging the services of a New York Advertising Agency to promote her as Brand NZ …
I’m sure it can get worse. I don’t know how, but I’m sure it can.
If you recall the earlier posts there was mention if not a link to an interview with Hillary Clinton denouncing the Metoo movement.
In that respect you have Jacinda supporting a wailing brigade of witches that their head girl has denounced.
Is that a smart move by a PM remembering that Clinton called Clark a cockroach for poking her oar into their politics.
I view the #MeToo movement through a very different lens. I think it’s great!
1) It encourages women to brave and assertive in calling out sexual assault, abuse and harassment. That’s wonderful news for good men. As it currently stands these things are often alleged years if not decades after the alleged incidents occurred. This makes it very difficult for men to defend themselves from such charges. If women are strong and assertive (as encouraged by #MeToo) then they can make these allegations to the proper authorities within minutes or hours of the incident taking place. In these circumstances there is a much greater chance that evidence will be available that will show that innocent men are innocent, and of course the guilty, guilty. As it stands men are found guilty not by way of evidence but by way of a baying lynch mob.
2) Strong assertive women are no threat to good men. Women being weak as previously encouraged by 3rd wave feminism are a considerable threat to men. Weak women will need trigger warnings, and safe spaces, and noisy protests to protect them from the Warren Farrell’s of this world, should they wish to speak about things like male suicide. Strong women can be brave enough to know that talking about male suicide won’t hurt them or any other woman.
3) Strong women made complaints about some male staff at Russel McVeagh. Great! An investigation found that a couple of creepy guys worked there. Most of all though it found that the vast majority of the men who work there are decent human beings who are deeply respectful of women. The slurs about a culture of power-crazy men abusing women was found to be totally false.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Make allegations promptly, investigate fairly, and then the truth will most likely out. And the truth is that the vast majority of men are good!
this is the other side of the ME TOO coin, I am sure everyone is aware, but reading of this experience sends it home to where much of the hysteria belongs.
an exert of this Brave woman.
“But as someone who has experienced what many would perceive to be a sexual assault, the momentum of the #MeToo movement makes me uneasy. Before I explain why, I should tell my story and the lessons I learned along the way. Those lessons were painful and the price I paid was steep, but I emerged from the experience stronger and wiser than before.”
* * *
Audi @4: Ok, so you think it’s great that men are having their careers and lives wrecked on the basis of untested allegations through news media rather than through proper legal channels? And on the basis of allegations many of which will be false or distorted because #metoo is essentially a call for women to join the anti-male lynch mob? And on the basis of unclear, shifting expectations on men concerning the ill-defined concept of ‘harassment’? And on the basis of allegations made so long after the alleged event that the man has very little chance of being able to find the evidence to support any legal defence? And on the basis that men are considered solely responsible for any activity that women agreed to participate in with them? Wow, but these are some of the key things that are harming men, and you suggested you were concerned about harm to men.
Good piece, thanks mama @5.
@6 Jeez MoMA! For starters, whoever you are, do you speak for all the members of MoMA? It would be good to know who I’m talking to. [edited out due to impropriety as previously ruled] Who am I addressing? I’m Peter.
Whoever you are, it seems to me that you are engaging in self-defeating binary thinking. Everything feminist = bad. Everything masculinist = good. If you have been following my posts you will have noticed that I extol reason. Should you wish to disagree with me then that’s just fine, but arguing with me by grossly misrepresenting what I’m saying won’t cut the mustard.
I did not say that I:
I did not support this being done:
Or on the basis of:
Or on the basis of:
Or on the basis:
If you want to disagree with me then why don’t you quote what I’m saying and disagree with that? If you make up some imaginary things allegedly said by me, and then proceed to disagree with your own imagination, then… sorry… but you just make yourself look silly!
Audi @8: You previously wrote that you thought the #metoo movement was “great”. No misrepresentation there. The #metoo movement supports and does all the things that you quoted in reply #8. Therefore, you must believe those things are great. That’s logic, which must be relevant to someone claiming to “extol reason”.
Your position is like asserting that the Christchurch earthquake was “great” because look at all the nice new buildings. That would be seeing the earthquake through a very different lens, a lens that disregards the significance of the 185 people who died and the thousands who were seriously injured.
As far as your allegation that MoMA is engaging in “…binary thinking. Everything feminist = bad. Everything masculinist = good”, that’s irrational (a) because it ignores the available evidence and (b) because it’s an ad hominem argument. Many of our posts and replies have acknowledged that some feminist gains were justified or have acknowledged the validity of some feminist concerns and the need for men to take responsibility for real stuff such as committing around 80% of partner homicides. You only have to read this very post which stated:
Your ad hominem attacks (including “you just make yourself look silly”) appear to be in response to being challenged for describing as “great” a movement that is causing a great deal of harm to men. That there may be a few ok aspects of #metoo doesn’t change that harm. There are plenty of people expressing support for feminist violence against men. The last thing men need is another one.
@jeez Audi Alteram Partem
Since you’ve arrived on this site you have openly targeted any other contributor who disagrees with your dictum.
You’ve already compiled quite a nice list of ad hominem and a bale of straw to boot, in order to establish your supposed superiority.
You’re welcome to be king of your own meeting, but this site does not encourage pseudo-passive debating to undermine what you consider dissenting opinion.
You’re not very good at hiding what you’re doing so you either don’t understand your own behaviour or you consider other contributors to have an inferior degree of intelligence.
I would suggest you are naive to believe this will help your cause and it’s certainly not going to encourage the debate here.
The new kid in the block , Audi, is already ruffling the feathers of the founding fathers ha ha . Good on you Audi .
On more serious note , if it wasn’t a truth it would be funny . But it is sad and divisive . Instead of uniting behind anyone who actually will try do something, we keep moaning and winging . That is why aggressive feminist are winning
‘Tony’, our Parliament is disfunctional and our media seldom reliable.
People can have their groups and places, and you’re right, without that there would be little progress.
But let’s not have another Massey University tirade against free speech here and turn this into written assaults based on political allegiance and defence of personal brands.
Gosh, you must think I’m stupid and/or crazy. I say I strongly support men’s rights and yet I have the temerity to (albeit provocatively) suggest the #MeToo movement is great. @9 You seem to be suggesting that I support feminist violence against men! Really?
I suggest that we are talking at cross purposes. May I try again to get my points across? Will you try to give me a fair hearing?
You list many appallingly harmful things that appear to be intrinsically linked to #MeToo. I agree with you that all those things are disgusting and need to be relentlessly challenged.
However… What would happen if you made a distinction between all the garbage associated with #MeToo and one central tenet of the movement that is actually quite good? I suggest that the good central tenet of the movement is empowering women (and men) to be brave and assertive by immediately challenging actual sexual assault or abuse or harassment whenever that occurs without being afraid to challenge those in positions of power.
It’s a question of optics. When you or other men’s right’s activists dismiss #MeToo I know that you are in reality dismissing all of the incredibly harmful attitudes and behaviours associated with #MeToo. But do you know what the feminists and the public at large think? They think that the people who dismiss #MeToo are some sort of deranged perverts who want men to be able to sexually abuse women with impunity.
If we stand up publicly as human rights’ advocates who in particular are concerned with men’s rights and say we support #MeToo, then we are not seen as perverted abusers and we will win the begrudging respect of some moderate feminists and the ear of the public. Having taken the moral high ground and earned sufficient respect to be listened to, then we can point out the very harmful excesses that are associated with the movement as you have clearly listed.
To me it’s about being strategic in winning over public support by being relentlessly fair and reasonable against a backdrop of relentlessly unreasonable man-hating propaganda. We need to use a laser-like focus to challenge what is evil and yet support the adjacent good.
As I also alluded to, #MeToo is a feminist own-goal. The machiavellian man-hating female-chauvinist feminist academics who pull the strings of the 3rd wave of feminism need women to to be weak and afraid so that they can be easily manipulated. If we as men’s rights activists wish to have any chance at easing men’s suffering we need, at every opportunity, to encourage women to be strong. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Strong women don’t hurt men, weak women do. Supporting the good parts of #MeToo (that encourage women to be strong) by default attacks the evil parts of feminism.
You and I want the same result. I’m just suggesting that the tactic of lashing out at all things feminist, or all things #MeToo, or the Labour party, or Jacinda, etc. etc. doesn’t seem to be working and it is time for a reconsideration of strategy.
Part of the problem in this debate is that #metoo effectively existed here under various other entities like White Ribbon.
So, as described above started in America, was picked up by a disgruntled lawyer who got an investigation at one law firm.
Given that it didn’t get traction outside of that it has largely remained a sensationalist media campaign in the US.
@10 Thanks for your feedback Downunder. I kid you not when I say that my friends and colleagues tell me I am one of the most humble men they have ever met. This site is perhaps bringing out the worst in me. Like many men here I have been very badly hurt by man-hating female chauvinism served up under the banner of feminism. I’m absolutely passionate about doing my utmost to save myself, my family, and other men and women from further harms caused by this invidious and insidious contempt of men. My sincere apologies then to anyone here who has had an experience of me targeting them. I categorically though make no apology for targeting any views, attitudes, suggestions, or beliefs that in my experience not only fail to bring about change but actually entrench the appalling attitudes that many feminists hold about men. If you disagree with me then that’s healthy debate and it’s a good thing. But as I pleaded before – play the ball not the man. Your comments @10 above are disparaging of me. That’s okay. You are welcome to think as many horrible things about me as you wish. I’m not a big fan of you either. But… None of that will make a skerrick of difference in the lives of hurt men and women. Debating the issues in a constructive and open minded manner might make a difference. Taking effective action to assuage the pain of hurt men and women will make a difference for those people. Changing public opinion will make a difference for many, many people now and into the future. Why don’t you come along on Saturday 3 November and start to make a real difference? You’d be most welcome.
“But let’s not have another Massey University tirade against free speech here and turn this into written assaults based on political allegiance and defence of personal brands”
Instead of indulging ourselves in free speech protection, , neo- Marxism learned nebulouses, philosophical/intellectual debates and other civilized matters for the gentlemen and teh ladies – I would rather use the underhand, primitive , banal, vulgar , cunning tactics that aggressive feminists are using every day , right in front of our eyes.
The more the system is sophisticated , the more primitive methods ruin it
THE speech was directed towards
(1) global warming and the humanitarian effort directed at saving pacific islands from the rising seas.
(2) AT NZ way to tackle feminism, a progress report
(3)reforestation-replanting (only thing of real value and interest for NZ) and
Sadly for the rise of the seas (1), blame is made towards the green gases and such whereby the real reason may be due to normal natural phenomenons. The same as the cause of the Sahara turning into a desert. And yet there is plenty of evidence it was green before.
Cycles come and go and sometimes they take millenias to be noticed. By then it is usually too late.
The other focus of the speech from memory was to do with (4) #Me2 becoming #we2 as the conclusion to what seemed like a progress report on feminism(2).
I think half the room had not heard of this unnatural phenomenon (2) (unless involved in the Youth section of the UN) and were left pondering what the Hell was she on about.
What they did hear however was a child crying/laughing/giggling in the room and were surprised to see the nursemaid stand up and address the room instead of the handsome young lad whom they assumed to be the Country Leader.
Reminds me of John Key complaining of people thinking he was Aussie at UN meetings and wanting to change our flag.
They were amazed at how well spoken she was until the obvious feminist agenda surfaced. Then it all made sense. It became blatant she was one of those proud ones.
So the audience retrograded into 1st gear and started paying attention. But it was too late by then. They still could not place NZ on any known map. Only two things came to mind, Lord of the Rings and the All blacks.
This must be a remote island indeed they thought, bemused, staring at this lovely young woman with great diction speaking at first in an indigenous language and then in the clearest of English.
This English however revealed a young mother inviting the World to take witness of a country called North and South Island which apparently was threatening to disappear under water any day AND where to this day, an ardent post 2nd world war battle of equality/supremacy of the sexes is still being waged
So they made a mental note to visit NZ soon before it became another Atlantis.
However her overly enthusiastic description of the orgiastic new crave called Me too or us three and them four, left them rather puzzled.
still to this day, the attendees wonder whether #we too is a coded message for a UN agenda about which they did not receive the memo.
Or something consenting adults engage into at burning man festivals.
Yeah, ruffling people’s feathers is so useful, especially when done to elders. What a great activity, so admirable.
Nice observations JustDubious @17!
Audi @13: Seeing #metoo as ‘great’ and seeing yourself as not supporting feminist anti-male violence are mutually exclusive positions.
More importantly, it’s naive to think that supporting unethical feminist behaviour or indeed any form of trying to curry favour with feminists will achieve any more for men than other approaches. No approach has (yet) made much of a dent in the feminist male-bashing machine anywhere in the world where it has taken hold. But public attitudes are changing and political direction will change too in time, probably quite fast once it starts. Straight talking, calling out bullshit, quoting reliable statistics and research and some powerful oratory will bring that about.
We don’t have confidence that either your diplomatic or debating skills are sufficient to make much impact. You came here insulting people with a comment that they couldn’t organize a piss-up in a brewery, disrespecting two well-organized men’s conferences held in NZ already during 2018 in addition to other smaller initiatives. You have come telling others that they have been doing it all wrong and you know better. In this thread you have opened your communication asserting provocatively that you think #metoo is great and showing absolutely no acknowledgment of the arguments made in the post you were replying too, yet you use a name about listening to the other side. We suggest the name Scio Melius may be more honest.
We expect the feminist forces will chew you up and spit you out even more quickly than they do to white knights. But we don’t want that to happen and wish you well with your efforts, assuming they are aimed at improving life for men.
Believe or not , a sudden thought woke me up at 4 a.m
It must have been connected with my inability to understand Audi’s critics despite their high brow words.
6 months ago I was determined to appeal my PO ( psychological abuse to a undiagnosed covert narcissistic woman ) Was advised to contact a particular experienced person.
I did and I insisted on paying for he advice.He obliged. I emailed him the PO and my draft appeal.
The reply I got was quite unexpected . Basically, this person very strongly told me, not to appeal as it is obvious that Judge found that my legal written efforts to obtain Affidavits from the direct witnesses of my ” psychological abuse” were one too many etc .
This person recommended that I better look at my self and work closely with the compulsory MEns Alive anger management program to address my issues.
Just one episode from the Anger management program:
I told my ” psychologist” that the Judge took against me my silent few seconds lasting smirk when the woman keep repeating her lies . So, my ” psychologist” told me the Judge was right because my smirk proved I don’t have respect toward the woman
And I will stop there. Sapienti sat. Total support for Audi
I will go back to sleep
@20 MoMA says:
I couldn’t agree more so now I’m going to call out some bullshit.
Bullshit! Just because you are a grumpy old codger does not make what you say correct without your providing any supporting argument whatsoever.
Some especially stinky Bullshit! I have never, never ever supported unethical feminist behaviour!
Bullshit! You are just talking Bullshit! Feminists have had enormous success with “intersectionality” I suggest that we align ourselves with other human rights activists because men’s rights are human rights and you suggest (without providing any reasons) that this proven tactic won’t work.
Bullshit! Your approach hasn’t worked and that appears to make you so bitter and twisted that you won’t support something different that may well work.
I was totally disrespecting Downunder who was dividing men’s efforts by proposing a bogus meeting. It had nothing to do you, MoMA or any conferences previously held that I totally do respect! Get over your overly-sensitive self!
Bullshit! I have not suggested people were doing it “all” wrong, but I have quite assertively suggested that somethings they were doing were unhelpful and I suggested alternative helpful things and I gave reasons for all of that. The haters and bullies on this site slink away like the cowards they are and fail to address the issues I have raised. In lieu they attack me rather than attack my ideas.
Bullshit! You and your ilk are the ones who think you know better. Listening to the other side does not mean you have to agree with the other side. You fail to engage in any logical argument. You want to be right for no reason other than you think you are right!
I have some special dietary requirements! I don’t eat shit! I don’t eat your shit and I don’t eat feminist shit! I’ve gone head to head with many a feminist. I don’t lose!
Have read of what Tony has written @21. That story is tragic. That story is my story too. Me too Tony, me too! A man somewhere in NZ is going through the same thing right now. It is so horrific that he is thinking of killing himself! I want to save that man’s life but all you want to do is talk bullshit!
This meeting is certainly going a bit better than the last time – no one turned up last time.
To think, our ancestors used to write letters that took three months to travel at sea, and they managed to organize a country.
Here’s a comment from a similar post that Triassic wrote in 2012.
Said another way … any Man, Woman, or any any men’s group is seen as a threat.
The extreme views of Feminism are not a threat to the Feminist agenda.
When you’re stuck in this mess, it’s very hard to see what’s actually going on.
Tony to contact @21: What’s the relevance of your story to this thread or to your assertion of “total support for Audi”?
Correction at #17
last sentence reads
It should have been
_ I am shocked BY Audi statement of support towards #Metoo.
I can see his points are valid to some extent.
Namely – only – the possibility for allegations to surface in a timely manner.
In that regard, my only comment may be that grief is not something that can be put on a schedule.
For a woman to be raped or for anybody to be sexually abused, going on stage and publicly is not something easy to do immediately or at all.
Some go as far as blaming themselves for what happened and sometimes, it may take a very long time for that person to awaken to the fact that it was not their fault and that speaking out may help protect others.
However using sensationalism to prosecute men in particular seems unjust (however way it is pitched) and becomes a bandwagon of social shaming.
And obviously some people will use it for political, financial as well as venal and vicious revengeful agendas which have nothing to do with fairness, justice or with resolving their trauma.
In this case MoMa views as pitched are very valid.
It is inappropriate for our PM to endorse such a witch hunt bandwagon.
The recent Brett Kavannaugh allegations make the case in point.
The first impact of the allegations created a media frenzy which completely undermined the accused case. And if a trial is to be conducted and such trial was to be by Jury; where would you find 12 people in America or worldwide that are not already infected by the allegations and do not each hold a personal opinion over the matter?
How many of those people would compete to be a juror just so later they can write a book about their experience?
I think in this case, it is a shame that public prosecution has tuned into another witch hunt whereby the witch is drown at first. If she dies by drowning, she is a witch. If she survives therefore she must be a witch then she is burnt.
With respect to the Kavannaugh case though, as soon as Donald trump stepped in, that case became ruined completely and utterly. Funny enough new evidence surfaced that Trump is a frausdster, a liar and a criminal and has basically failed at all his businesses and has been constantly bailed out by his father. He is not credible in any way. And essentially has ripped off the American taxpayer all his life.
AS a compromise to both sides, I can see that if someone had already prosecuted a rapist whom through whatever means was found not guilty (when they were- due to error in process or lack of evidence), the #metoo campaign could be useful in alerting the rest of the world of a predator still out there. Even that is open to abuse.
We already have a pedophile listing and neighborhood watches over these predators but the pre-requisite is conviction for anyone to have their rights to anonymity or privacy breached on the world’s stage..
SO if the MEtoo is solely based simply on female making defaming statements without proof, then it cannot be right to have a governmental endorsement.
It simply is wrong at all levels.
My humble opinion….
Tony, will all due respect, you are shit stirrer.
This is not about Audi being right over anyone.
It is a discussion about what we believe and why.
Today Audi may be right and tomorrow he may be wrong.
Same with Moma and same with all of us.
TO be human is to err. To be a leader is to accept having failed, learning what lead to that failing and making changes to prevent such from occurring in the future.
Audi May wish to gain our trust and respect, if so; he is being tested and he knows it.
I would advise him to speak less and say more.
WE all want the same and it is great we do not agree.
It is actually better that we do not agree so that we can iron out the differences.
No room for partisanism here.
The only cause of action is human rights (men in particular)
I have met many a person whom seem to have only one purpose in life and which is to take side with someone against someone. It is their reason for existing, to create polemic, abandon their own life and subject themselves to slavery at the benefit of another.
Those people usually are the ones that always defeat the ones they prop up and later betray and blame them for apparently having “unselfishly” supported them. That is the curse of the snitch and informant. Bound to be alone forever.
The example you have given is similar to mine. I smirked and it was used against me. And yet she was lying in the stand right in my face. It’s just a tactic people use when they play the roles of victims.
FYI – people like that, you do not confront them. They know they lie and have erected a wall of lies. So whenever confronted, they attack. You do not confront them, you stroke their egoes. And they will give you all you want on a platter.
#WeToo already exists as a concept in young female minds,
It’s very much how the female mind operates. They don’t like being excluded. The idea of a group is very confrontation, and of meeting a standard or requirement to be included.
It’s quite clear that WeToo is a polite form of all men are rapists hiding under the guise of all women are equal.
Thank you for your well meaning letter
I do fully agree with you . You gave very good reasons for us to behave in a civilized manner appreciating our different opinions , modus operandi , etc.
All I can say , while I respect your civilized way of thinking, is that aggressive feminists are winning because they use cunning , vulgar , banal and underhand tactics . Four women from four different cultures can agree in no time in NZ social environment plus an immediate support of unknown women by default , in case one of them have an ax to grind against men ( family Court, tribunal Disputes , Police etc)
All I am saying is very simple . Whether we like it or not we can not even try to win unless we unite regardless of disagreements. Riding on high moral horse is admirable but brings no result.
Am I wrong about that ? But if my posts create divisiveness among us I will stop it . That is the last thing in my mind
JustCurious @26: Thanks for your considered thoughts. We agree with much of what you say but a couple of matters deserve scrutiny.
Firstly, when people seek to have others prosecuted for sexual offending, they readily get name suppression so it’s not correct to say they are necessarily going on stage and publicly. Sure, they will be challenged by the defence and judged by family, friends and those who know about the case. Regarding #metoo the accusers appear to have deliberately chosen the public stage rather than going through available legal channels. Prof Janice Fiamengo provides a good analysis of the claimed bravery and sacrifice for women who accuse men of sexual impropriety in this way.
Prof Fiamengo also provides worthwhile comment on #metoo generally.
Mmm, well the special treatment regarding duration for those alleging sexual crimes seems to us poorly based. Whereas for most crimes there are time limits for reporting, there is no limit regarding sexual allegations. That may be justified for children who lack the insight, knowledge and skills required to use the legal channels, but why for adults?
Why would it take a long time for an adult “to awaken to the fact that it was not their fault”? In that case it seems more likely that the person’s memory of what happened has gradually changed to hold the other party more responsible. If an adult spent years seeing herself as sharing responsibility for a sexual event then that was probably accurate. If not, then the person has chosen for whatever reason not to do anything about the event. Surely a few years is enough time for them to make that decision, especially in view of what we know about the fallibility of memory and the increasing difficulty over time an accused will have defending himself or even remembering where and with whom he was that night.
Sure, sexual events will involve personal and embarrassing matters that may make it more daunting than for some other events to go to the authorities. But that will be the case no matter how long a person waits, and surely several years is enough time to face that. Also, for alleged crimes of any kind it can be difficult for people to go to the police and through the legal process. Personal and embarrassing factors will be present in many cases, for example having been a gullible victim of fraud or a male having been humiliated through violence. All complaints to police might be met with close and possibly skeptical questioning but that’s appropriate for any realistic investigation.
Regarding being aware that speaking out might protect others, it’s unlikely any moderately intelligent adult would take long to know that and there’s no reason this would take any longer for sexual crimes than for other crimes.
Well we would see that as inherently abusive in the form of defamation and lynch mob justice. Surely it can’t be ok for someone, after being unable to prove allegations in Court, to administer one’s own extrajudicial process against the accused?
Thank you for your reply.
Forgive me but i do not agree with your logic.
I thought I had understood your stance but the points you make/raise/clarify upon at above raise some concern in my mind as to the soundness of my own previous interference in your here public communication with Audi.
At any rate, the arguments you advance do confirm the impression raised by Audi that “the tactic of lashing out at all things feminist, or all things #MeToo,…” at post #13, may be valid.
It does appear that the practice of indiscriminately and overly focusing in rejecting all things feminist FIRST and then logically JUSTIFYING it may impact on your good sense and obvious intelligent person.
It will also impact severely on any action out there attempting to reclaim the good image of men if these stances, attitudes and beliefs are spread out there unfiltered and confirm the common already established perception against men.
Those are essentially the two good points made by Audi on his argument. I did however disagree with his personal or political stance on #metoo. I, at first did not raise an eyebrow. But upon hearing further from him, as per my post above, I disagreed.
Case in point is the personal negative experience shared by all men on this site and which effectively led us here.
Some among us are still under that experience and thus wear permanent glasses of various shades whilst others have overcome that experience and still remain the good self they have always been.
Based on your latest comment (too long to reply point by point), I am not satisfied you have distanced yourself enough from your personal experience in this argument.
This is not criticism – More of an internal acknowledgement – I used to think of you as a conscious objector. I might however have to temporarily withhold the “conscious” part of your objection.
Dear JustCurious @31: Tedious, ad hominem stuff.
@ Ministry of Affairs
Thank you for asking me .
1. Short reply : I feel sad , very sad that I have to write the
The person who gave those advises is one of Audi’s critics . I never met that person personally but I wouldn’t like to have people like him next to me in a trench under fire . I know, perhaps you too ? there are few men who imposed themselves as leaders in various men’s ” protection” groups . I visited two of groups several times when asking for help for my troubles . I was out of myself , I started talking to myself , I started going crazy , well not really but close to that.
These men , I found that later, established charities whereas you pay money for their advises which is absolutely OK with me . The problem with these men is they are either lawyers looking for customers within the group or applied legal counselors doing the same – that is again Ok with me . demand and supply market conditions , no problem at all
Those men don’t like you if you a are a self litigant as I was . Ok, again D/S pure market conditions.
As I can’t understand Audi’s critics ( open or thinly veiled) as if he needs another negative feedback while fighting for noble cause against the winning aggressive women and their misguided not so aggressive but never the less cunning and money/ status driven voyaers/ exhibitionists and narcissists without real life – I can only assume that there are two reasons for them trying to discourage Audi
A) The above few mentioned men are afraid of loosing their influence over the group/groups and the miserable income coming from their advises. I cancelled my lawyer as he wanted to charge me an extra five minutes of his time but on double rate .
B) Personal problems ,
If you have noticed there were few attempts by other people on this site , albeit not so well corroborated and sophisticated as the Audi’s one who also asked /suggested similar actions like Audi – They were ignored or were discouraged with the more or less the same “arguments” as we have been witnessing now.
Don’t you feel sorry and admiration for Audi in the same time ? I do . I do sincerely hope that he will not be discouraged by some men here.
So, again, total support for Audi, whoever he is , I don’t care . All I can see he is highly intelligent man with clever , very clever tactics and arguments . I do really like that kind of people . Don’t you Ministry of Affairs ?
Curious at 31 ‘rejecting all things feminist’ – Yes. EVERYONE should reject that lying ideology of endless false statics and instead, should embrace equality while recognising that male and females have inherent differences. Women were conned. The bankers wanted more mortgages and loans. This could only be achieved with two working parents. Single women having children as beneficiaries has become a life style too. Consequently, the middle class is disappearing as we revert back to the old order of an elite who rule by birthright and a dumb and easily controlled poor class.
Doug @ 34
No doubt you saw the quote I put in @28
If young girls are thinking like that ….
Then this section of the above post takes on a wider meaning.
@34 Doug – I do not disagree with you. ME Too is abhorrent.
IF someone said I dislike #metoo, I would say me too.
IF someone explains why they dislike it then they have to convince me so that I can agree with their logic or reasoning.
If that logic is hating all things feminist or barely resembling feminism, in my mind, that person has real issues.
Every truth has its dimension. There is always a modicum of good in all tings even bad things.
AS you see, I can agree with how you feel but I do not have to agree with your reasoning if any.
Take an example – CYFS is abhorrent in their practices – but they at times, do the right thing and may protect a child or two.
The police is the same, every time I see a traffic stop, I am furious, it’s my tax money used to financially enslave me and the cop is a fraudster changing hats from a servant to a revenue collector.
But, if I needed them, for any reason, they would be the good guys. I would hope.
I guess I am advocating for temperance. It’s neither black nor white, it’s all the shades of grey.
Look at the process …
Radical view reported in the media
Media find a couple of kids and report that view
Why bother having politicians and a contest of ideas when you’ve got this media dynamic interfering with the vote?
Looking at what Dan said #24
The situation he describes has deteriorated.
The media is niw promoting the radical view and defending the territory.
Further from #36-
Currently the de-facto issue is our PM is a declared feminist.
Means no matter how we feel about it, it is the state of things.
When she speaks at the UN, it is our communal voice she is expressing.
Her version of feminism is liberalization of women and empowerment of women.
Reach for the Stars —–
That is an ideology sold on us and using young and gullible people to create a hateful divide between sexes.
But one that allows women in general to loose all inhibition and strive their best to create the world they want on the back of their own sweat.
That is what we want for our daughters isn’t it?
You own daughter may decide to adopt feminism, would you reject her?
Most likely not. Same as if she decided to become a lesbian. There is not much you, we, or anyone can do about it.
WE still must simply love them and hope this temporary insanity will fall off.
And it will, eventually.
Because essentially, that is what it is, temporary insanity.
All women can be feminists but not all mothers will be (that’s where reality starts to set in).
time will tell.
You don’t need to worry about that, she will reject you.
#40 – good one… so damn right.
I guess you are the ambulance at the bottom of the hill then?
When it comes to Feminism men are a bit like Prince Philip …
Always four steps behind.
@42, that’s giving men too much credit.
Light years behind
Downunder wrote ‘WeToo is a polite form of all men are rapists hiding under the guise of all women are equal’ – LOL! Well said!
Now we have something getting off the ground called
#MeWe … haven’t seen the fine print on that one yet.
42 and 43, four steps behind or light years behind? I can not see it.. to me men have not been blind, naive or behind, they have just BEEN, you simply just do not expect that Women , whom have largely gotten what they have been wanting since the beginning of feminism, would take and take and keep on taking, not blind , to me Blind Sided! Women have not become Brave, more like Brash, ( sorry Don).
45, Evan,,,MeWE , must be the inclusion of the intersectional feminism,,,more folds filled in the wings of the ULTRA WOMANKIND,, gather they will, come all ye faithfull and aw that…!!!!
men are blind.
all we are complaining about is done by men even if it is the feminist agenda.
so either blind or re-tarted, but men are not even on this planet.
48, Just Curious,,,I will not agree, Men have been doing life, that is all, they expect life to be , maybe , more simple, life has made it harder to make ends meet and yet the woman can complain, the men do not complain about hard work, the just get on with life.
How could one call a man retarded or blind when he has been the genius, the soldier, the king, the martyr, he has EARNED his place in the world!!, Women have done some of this through time but it can not be compared, you can not repeal History….HIS STORY!
WHAT WILL BE HER STORY???!!
50,,KNOCK OUT THE ‘y’ GENE???
While the blokes are scratching a living the only one making a buck is Bromhead.
men are nature’s idiots.
An impediment to progress.
and essentially the workforce of the feminist agenda.
Slave by will and by reason.
Brainwashed from birth in to chivalry, protect the weak and the innocent, surrender your life for those. work your ass off as a forfeiture to one’s right to a family…
the plight of men is self induced. The same feninst agenda foisted on men is the same dream sold on men
we did not get here by hazard. The feminsit boat would bever get here without men’s support and participation.
Now it’s poor me. I bought the dream. I worked hard all my life. I built a home, I paid the mortgage. …I, I, I….
who says men do not complain?
How many men do I see today, refusing to give up a job so they can be with their children?
How many are hiding behind excuses when they can stand up and be counted?
it is our complacency that has lead us here.
You are right mama. Men simply are. Under developped, unprepared and unsuspecting.
You know what i mean.
This is nature forcing men to take stock of their own ambivalence and complacency.
The world has shifted long ago and we refuse to take heed of our surroundings.
So nature is nudging us 0WAKE UP….
Reassess your priorities.
Chose between servicing a mortgage or be of service to your family.
Send her to earn an income and spend time with your kids…
Men need to grow up. We are not four steps behind or light years behound, We are on another planet all together.
There you go, I said it.
Half the problem is we have shacked up with the wrong woman to start with.
Everyone going though hell today is his own fault. He picked the wrong woman.
Or he was fooled into seducing the wrong woman.
Then we gave her kids. Then we gave her our mind and wallet.
WTF did we expect to happen. How long before she decided, she does not need you or your kids are better off without you?
So yes men are just are …dumb…. when compared to women…that’s just it.
It it not by choice, call Chivalry stupidity if you must….call logic unrealistic if you must…
It is a choice mama, chivalry is stupid. It’s an 19th century ideal created by romance.
Same as the fairy tale of the prince charming.
It’s not logic either (the heart has its reasons that reason does not understand)
Love itself is temporary insanity
growing up, no sex before marriage. Date all you want and for as long as you want but no sex. IMPULSE CONTROL
get to know her. Find out about her family. Get your parents to give you their opinion. Get them to guide you in selecting not the woman you love but the one you are the most compatible with.
Those marriages do last. When you have the same mentality and the same goals. It;s not just you getting married. You are engaging your family with another family. There are guidelines, there is support. THere is consultation and there is counselling, all within the family.
IN the modern world, none of that, you fall in love overnight and wake up married with twins on the way. No preparation, no planning, no buildup, no social support, no family support, no…no…no… total strangers, no compatibility whatsoever. When the pussy whip is over, a man is isolated and enslaved.
I mean, it’s no surprise where our society is at. No family to back you up. no support except through governmental agencies… no social structure to support marriage. nada…
this applies to women also…
An old gipsy proverb – Young people know much about sex nowadays but marry them and they will find love.
this of course is related to arranged marriages or supported marriages based on compatibility.
But society used to be the gatekeepers and the family the support people.
Compatibility before Love. – Love is a myth and people confuse it with awe, admiration and lust.
it wanes and when it leaves, resentment steps in. Commitment, partnership and all these critical values to any relationship are now irrelevant.
Love without respect is not love. Love alone will not hold a marriage together.
Romance is the key, take this away and you take away the respect between Man and Woman, as we speak romance is being bundled up and shipped out like a cargo of rubbish, to have women hell bent on the divide talking to young people about the opportunities they will have if they denounce such notions of things like romance where does this leave us?
Romance is just another word for appreciation.
But the key is intimacy and I do not mean just sending your partner into orbit during intimacy.
I mean pulling the moon close enough to be your ngihlight and having an orgiastic feast of love, care, attention and support for him or her.
It takes two to tango.
@ Denise and Mama
I do not mean to invalidate anything you say.They are valid points and good interesting stuff to ponder upon.
I am speaking from a perspective whereby i have had to revisit all notions foreign or otherwise inculcated in me since a kid and redefine everything that i have learnt and been programmed to beleive in.
Romance is another word for intimacy. To feel appreciated and to some extent cared for with the ability to reciprocate in whatever capability a person has without expectation and share and bounce out good feelings as well as amplifying them and vibrated at a higher resonnance is the stuff of happiness.
It’s not something you do at valentine only. But a way of life. In fact for a woman to be happy and express happiness, is the best protection against male predators who thrive on insecurities and like a magnet, will draw the right kind of man along to share in your happiness. It makes weak men uneasy. the mama’s boys who mistake bravado for confidence.
Through your chosen vibration, you create the reality you wish.
But of course the prerequisite is having something to share.
Everything else we have be taught may be a sham. It creates disillusion and resentment.
Give me a bowl.
If there is a truth to words
Then choice carefully
The ones you would respect and keep.
Hi Doug, Audi here. Pleased to meet you. Hey Doug, would you mind helping me out with a little experiment? Great thanks! So, I’d like to send you two different messages and I’d like to know how you respond to each of them. Okay here goes…
@34 You note that everyone should reject all things feminist and mention lying ideologies and endless false statistics. These things really cause men considerable harm. Like the complete falsification of domestic abuse statistics that deny help to abused men. And the utter lies told that paint men as demonic discriminators such as the gender pay gap, the lack of women on private boards and the claims for women’s reproductive rights whilst totally ignoring men’s reproductive rights. And don’t get me started about the male suicide rates! Having said all that I think that despite having won the feminist revolution there might still be the odd “hot spot” of discrimination against women left over from the bad old days when many men did not respect the capacities of many women. What do you think about that?
@34 Doug you are clearly a crazed misogynist who couldn’t care less about woman’s rights. Whinny boy-men like you are so full of indignant male privilege that you can’t see past your own self-interest. You see all women as a threat to your relentless tactics of power and control.
Tell the truth now Doug? How did you feel on reading each of those messages? The thing is Doug, I’ve come the realisation that the hate-filled lies told by most feminists are actualy killing men. I want those feminists to stop telling those terrible lies that incite women to act horrifically towards men. Or at least when they do tell those lies for there to be a resounding chorus of dissent.
My question is: What will be most effective in changing the hearts and minds of feminists and/or the general public? Swap the roles. Imagine us communicating with a feminist in the same way that a feminist might communicate with you as per message One and Two.
What would work best? A robust attack as per Message Two? Or a more conciliatory and fair-minded reasoning as per Message One.
This may be your view of the world, Audi and perhaps even your experience but that is not in my view, what is killing men.
Construction workers aren’t killing themselves because feminists think naughty boys shouldn’t woolf whistle at them anymore.
Talk nicely to us and we’ll stop killing ourselves?
Tell me if you said anymore than that?
This is the message of the shouty little school girl – you see that on social media everyday.
You may not be hearing that from the mouths of leading Feminists, they are some what more eloquent in their expression and able to amuse themselves in other ways but that is what they’re thinking.
Yes, I am saying more than that. It’s a process that is no different than what happened in Nazi Germany. It all starts with propaganda. Feminists engage in relentless propaganda that demeans men. This demeaning of men becomes the zeitgeist of the times. Then women and men (as in the White Ribbon Campaign) start discriminating against men. That discrimination becomes so blatant that feminists in positions of responsibility in our society deny men their basic human rights and moreover basic human dignity. Living, without being afforded basic dignity is horrendous. Those men live lives of desperation and hopelessness. Some lives are ruined, others completely destroyed.
There is a direct link between the propaganda and the suicide. We must fight the propaganda to save the men’s lives.
BTW: Suicide in NZ is highest in construction work. Construction workers are six times more likely to die from suicide than from a work-place accident.
# 61, I did not have a problem with anything Doug,34, comment. He wants equal rights. Women already have this and it shows when we see many, many women at the top of their game in sociey, bloody government do not care, they are always looking to stand tall for anything so as to extend their tenure.
@67 That was the reason I particularly mentioned construction workers.
One of their biggest issues is the effects of child support on short term contracts, and coping with stand downs in between.
Employers are not unaware of this to the extent that they were swapping employees on a monthly basis , paying cash wages and using other mechanisms so the IRD couldn’t keep up with their whereabouts.
They do realise dead workers don’t contribute much to a building site other than time off for a funeral.
69, Down under, oh god ,yes, you are not kidding, some of our men are in a really shit predicament, …
Imagine, you get home after a hard days work, having started out at 5am, come home to one of those statements from ird/child support,,,what they say you owe has grown substantially, trying to check back is impossible, trying to talk to someone from the department is nigh on possible and when are you supposed to do that??you spiral, the problem spirals.
You might find this post of interest Mama
Do you pay any attention to “shouty little school girls” Downunder? I know I don’t! I dismiss their inane ramblings out of hand. One of the things I’m trying to say on this site is that if we want to be heard and taken seriously we need to use a grown-up voice and not sound like shouty little school boys.
I’m hoping Lizzie Marvelly will grow up one day and use the brains she has got for something a little more productive.
For example @40 above.
I have two daughters and two sons. All four of them would probably identify as feminists. (What can I say? I tried to bring them up right!) The thing is that I love them all unconditionally as they do I.
So Downunder – At 40 were you engaging in the inane ramblings of a shouty little school boy?
I don’t think you’re idiot, mate. But you obviously don’t understand social media and the fact that our sons are friends with these girls.
That may make you an idiot whether you like it or not.
74, Audi,,, It is the social media generation, what can we say?
my grandson wont even call his bully FAT, so I did for him.
@75. Play the ball Downunder. Not the man. Suggesting that I’m an idiot because I “obviously” don’t understand social media doesn’t win the argument for you.
The issue at foot is: What mode of communication will be most effective for men’s rights activists in saving men from harm?
You are clearly a highly educated fellow, why don’t you try turning your considerable intelligence to the issue and make some germane comments about that?
@76. Oh Mama! I’m a tad overweight myself. I do hope you don’t call me such awful names when we meet on the 3rd of November 🙂
Are you the delivery boy of kindness?
78,,HAHA,, hey Audi,,, It was just between me and my lovely grandson, he struggled to describe this boy and said maybe he had eaten too many sweets, so I said the word fat,,it actually made him blush. He has not reached face book age and he can not use the word fat, the PC machine is doing its’ job that well…but on a serious note how WILL these youngins express themselves or will they keep it all inside.
@79. Yes Evan. Yes I am! And how very kind of you to refer to me as a boy. Frankly that hasn’t happened for quite a few decades now. You really have made my day 🙂
When I said you had a PR deficiency, I really didn’t think it was that bad.
Your PR wouldn’t pulse the veins of fungus gnat.
@80. Not sure Mama. I hate political correctness, but relentless put-downs can seriously erode self-esteem. It’s a balance I guess.
Hahahaha…hahahaha… That’s really good. No I mean it! I’m sill laughing. ROTFLOL 🙂
Downunder would need to disavow the misogyny that he (or she if she is a feminist troll) is displaying before I would think he/she would make for a suitable attendee.
Should I keep a list?
@85 Great! Thanks! What’s the score so far? No partisanship though! I’m trusting you to mark this fairly.
given that Murray may have considered you two one in the same, that would make you spectacularly crazy!!
@75. Doh! Sorry Downunder. I just (I think) got your drift. You thought my dismissing their inane ramblings out of hand, meant that I don’t take the threat of those ramblings seriously. If so, we are at cross purposes. I take that threat incredibly seriously. My point was simply to elevate the men’s rights discourse well above their’s to the level at which it can be taken seriously by society at large and eventually the media.
My eldest daughter works in public relations for one of the largest corporations in the world. She is in charge of ‘communications’ for a geographical area that covers about one third of the world’s population. I respect her opinion on public relations matters. When we discuss my concerns about abuse of men’s rights, she says that to sway public opinion on this we need to lead with and play strongly the male suicide angle. That will generate public sympathy for the issue and soften ingrained beliefs about women being victims and men perpetrators.
88, Audi,, Wow, your daughter is a great one to confer with being in public relations at such a level.
The angle of suicide is good to have in your arsenal for sure, when I looked at the stats of Male Suicide quite a large percentage indicated it was possible that were sent over the edge by such problems as discussed here, employed , of an age where by break up and family breakdown occurs.
…sorry , I meant to add though that I do not know whether going out with the face to attract a SYMPATHY vote was necessarily the best face to wear, you need surely to get the backing of as many Men as possible, get them and you will get the Mamas and the likes as well.
Hmmmm, sensationalism is good (DownBlunder comes to mind)
But using the suicide angle is something that could not be done lightly.
Yes it may work but its consequences could be as drastic as the DV Act
Currently with the DV ACT, the system is filling its quota of informants.
“Tell us your concerns and we will look after you (interloping), evict your partner (expropriation), pay your bills (extortion), protect you (abuse men), and take all responsibilities from you (turn you into an employee). We are happy to make a new class of citizen out of you and support you in your destruction of the NZ family.”
For every class of protection afforded, comes a certain range of abuse.
I can see the head lines FROM THE meN:
NZ Kiwi male on extinction list due to suicide concerns.
3 in 5 Kiwi male commits suicide – (feminism kills NATIVE nz ICON)
And the counterpart from the Feminist:
Males commit suicide for lack of female to bash.
I wonder if the government will:
Remove the female from the family home, serve her a protection order, protect the kids from her, subsidize his income, provide therapy and thus enforce counseling for fake abuse, provide extra support for laundry, specialized sexual partners, petrol for fishing, or for four wheel driving or hunting?
or would they quarantine all men in bomb proof silos and nuclear proof bunkers to protect the rest of society from harm?