Tony Robins is another celebrity to be brave enough to come out against the #metoo movement. He joins feminist Germaine Greer And Catherine Deneuve to name a few. Article here
The celebrity life coach told the audience he wasn’t “knocking the #MeToo movement,” but was “knocking victimhood.” He addressed the crowd, asking them to consider the impact of it while saying “anger is not empowerment.”
Is this a sign of the tide turning or is the tsunami of post modernism ideology unstoppable?
Friday 13th is wear black to work day to stand up to sexual harrassment.
Guys could have a black ribbon day since we’re generally not included in anything feminists do.
Maybe the stale-pale-males could get out there and protest with nurses for their payrises.
They’re the ones looking after us in hospital when we end up there more often than we like in our autumn of life.
It’s good that some people have raised obvious concerns about #metoo. Tony Robins didn’t really come out against it but disapproved of a victimhood mentality in those contributing. Since his statement he has expressed further support for the movement and those joining that bandwagon.
Professor Janice Fiamengo has come out with very relevant criticism of #metoo, criticizing its disregard for basic principles of justice such as the right to have allegations investigated and tested and the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. An anonymous internet movement encouraging all manner of dirt raking is irresponsible, divisive and essentially a hate-speech movement against men.
The Movie Breakfast Club has come under attack.
It portrays and normalised sexual harassment.
It portrays and normalised sexual assualt.
It portrays and normalised the assaulter as getting the girl in the end.
A whole generation of humans were brainwashed.
He said nothing wrong in my opinion, he was stating a fact and when they don’t get there own way or the promotion they deserve they can do great out of a sexual harassment scandal. The world is gone mad, the pendulum has swung too far
Thanks for your input Kyle
There is a significant space given to a #metoo section on stuff.
It reads like an
Old white man bad section
Beat the younger male generation into submission section
This is the path to success and prosperity section
Especially for lawyers section
Did I miss anything?
See this mass exodus of NIKE executives #MeeT00 :~ https://www.boston.com/news/business/2018/04/28/nike-gender-discrimination-women
I see on Stuff it is #metoonz that has its own front page section still.
Ali Mau is on a national #MeToo crusade looking for personal cases to turn men into media fodder.
NZ Herald – Law Society shocked at scale of sexual harrassment.
Yeap. You can smell the campaign rising.
But after years of persecution in the Family Court I don’t think many men will to concerned if the rip themselves to bits.
The #metoo movement is finally exposing it’s true intent.
Led by feminists such as Jan Logie from within the Ministry of Justice.
Anybody guess what these women really want?
Men to have thier lives ruined?
Nope men are only collateral damage to feminists. All that could possibly take place is all the top men get sacked so women get the top dollar jobs.
Safety for women?
Since when have they done anything to achieve that. Anybody can see the DVA has not increased safety for women. It’s created lots of jobs for women, even some (lawyers) have got rich out of it.
Oops I think there’s a trend appearing.
More money for women?
The aim is to change ACC so anybody that cliams harm from sexual harassment can get an ACC payout.
I doubt proof of the harassment will be required.
@13 I saw that. Here we go again.
COHA – Causalties of Harrasment Alegations. (Pronounced Koha)
Men may have to take matters into their own hands, women are getting too dangerous.
You can see it coming.
Anyone with half a public reputation will get the media treatment and maybe screwed for a private settlement – restorative justification.
Jill Blogs can make an ACC claim.
Job Interview with HR …
“And tell me Joe, do you have an ACC record?”
That should get the PSA up to 98% women 2% Gay men.
And this is #NZ today for you.
I found this on kiwi blog – a current analysis of the male disadvantages in society.
Full credit as Fitzy would say for taking the time.
Education – Secondary
11% less likely to get NCEA Level 1
7% less likely to get NCEA Level 2
14% less likely to get NCEA Level 3
25% more likely to leave school with no qualifications
Twice as likely to be a high (special) needs student
27% less likely to get UE
Three times more likely to be stood down, suspended
5 times more likely to be excluded or expelled
Education – Tertiary
42% less likely to be in tertiary education
36% less likely to obtain a diploma
37% less likely to obtain a bachelors degree
25% less likely to get Honours
37% less likely to get Masters
26% less likely to get a PhD
Twice as likely to be a victim of homicide
43% more likely to be assaulted by a stranger
Twelve times more likely to be in prison
Five times more likely to be sentenced for a crime
Eight times more likely to be sentenced to prison
Seven times more likely to commit suicide
Six times more likely to be subject to a mental health compulsory treatment order
Seven times more likely to be a mental health special patient
113% more likely to be a hazardous drinker
67% more likely to drink drive
Twice as likely to be a user of hard drugs
10% more likely to get cancer
74% more likely to have coronary heart disease
31% more likely to have a stroke
270% more likely to have gout
11% more likely to have diabetes
Ten times more likely to have HIV/AIDs
Four years shorter life expectancy
24% more likely to be a smoker
11% more likely to be obese
28% more likely to have high blood pressure
33% more likely to have high cholesterol
46% more likely to have an intellectual disability
22% more likely to be hearing impaired
Twice as likely to be injured at work
Three times as likely to be seriously injured at work
Twenty times as likely to be killed at work
Three times more likely to be deported
2.1 times more likely to have a fatal accident
Four times less likely to gain primary custody of children
Five times more likely to have to be paying child support
10% more likely to be homeless
28% more likely to be injured in a car crash
130% more likely to be killed in a car crash
Four times more likely to drown
Seven times more likely to be autistic
24% more likely to have Down syndrome
Five times more likely to have ADHD as a child
30% more likely to be an infant death
Quite chilling when you read the whole list.
Interesting: The list actually recognises child support as a disadvantage.
Five times more likely to be paying child support.
When you look at the tertiary education stats we are not far off 2:1 in tertiary education.
Twice as likely to get a sexual harrassment complaint.
What factor would you increase that by when there is a trial by media #MeToo campaign in full swing.
Australia has gone total #Metoo
National inquiry into sexual harrassment.
This is interesting.
” WELL AIN’T THAT A PEACH “…..
This is a disturbing twist in New Zealand politics
Ross being Botany MP and Bridges National Party Leader.
Simon Says….”DOH!!,,why do I keep eating my own feet!”
This young lady has a refreshingly honest perspective.
Yep,,,YOU GOTTA LOVE THIS GIRL!
Starts out with ‘Women are not monolithic.”
We’ve saw variations of this when #metoo surfaced. I even saw recently Mrs Trump responding to a question with “We should not try and change men.”
While not a lone voice this is a total contradiction to our current Feminist agenda.
It’s not communicated by politicians as being right. And it’s not the easy money.
this from evan above,,, I even saw recently Mr Trump responding to a question with “We should not try and change men.” …I think he stole this line from Melania.
@24. Thanks Voices for sharing the Meghan Daum article.
I have a couple of reflections on that article that I suggest we (men’s rights activists) should, well, reflect on.
Firstly, we can probably agree with a lot of what she is saying and yet she maintains that she is a feminist. One theme I am picking up from this site is that feminists are the devil incarnate. A softening of that attitude might see us and feminists like Meghan working together for constructive change.
Secondly is her take on the men’s rights movement, which she describes as, “a loosely knit and often self-defeating enterprise that overrides legitimate grievances about, say, the family court system, with ambient misogyny and conspiracy theories.”
Men’s rights as a movement has an enormous Public Relations problem because that is how we are seen. It may seem attractive to be a self-styled Paul Elam making outrageously provocative statements to get publicity, but I suggest that not all publicity is good publicity.
The Men’s Rights Movement needs to have a credible voice if we are to make progress in saving men from harm.
On this site I have challenged what I see as being misogyny or conspiracy theories. For my troubles I am regarded as arrogantly knowing better. I’m not arrogant, and nor do I “know better”. But I do have opinions, and I’m not a shrinking violet. My opinion is that to make progress on men’s rights, we need to be as inclusive as possible and we need to speak with a credible voice. I really do want to make a difference for the better in men’s lives and would greatly appreciate any feedback that deals with the issues we are facing, but leaves the apparent defects in my personality and intelligence for discussion at another time.
Audi, you’d be more use nailed to a fucking perch, imitating a deceased parrot.
aie aie aie like the french would say …
mais ooh la la!
I’d like to thank Audi through this public forum.
He sensed I had challenges and made the effort to contact me privately.
I could tell when we spoke on the phone that he’d gone to quite some effort
to understand my issues by researching relevant laws etc.
we spoke for an hour and he since has kept helping with detailed follow up and genuine support.
He is , in my view- a well spoken well reasoned gentleman with insight and genuine concern for men’s issues.
I’ve also had help from other men and I appreciate them too.
If it wasn’t for this kind of support I wouldn’t have the courage to stand up against injustices that I’ve experienced.
@24 voices, you saw in this article what you wanted to. That’s where your head went. You called it refreshingly honest.
What about this;
“I realize that the physical size difference between most women and most men means that the above comparison isn’t entirely fair; a woman who’s sexually aggressive with a man is probably not putting him in insurmountable physical danger. And I’m cognizant of the fact that for every bad behavior I mentioned in my opening list of questions there is an equal, opposite, and potentially more physically threatening form of bad behavior that men can, and do, visit upon women with just as much frequency.”
#31,,,Voices,,, thank you for the insight.
It is interesting that whilst there is help out their for Men caught in the system it is not enough,
I guess many factors stop the help, such as the DURATION, the PERSONAL fight, the sense of HOPELESSNESS, etc, etc….
It is so great, and I know it is hell, that you manage to keep your chin up enough to carry on and on.
We need an active MANHUB to take in and give help when needed, just as you have pointed out Audis’ timely helping hand , we need an ARMY of helping hands.
#,,32,, when reading that article I must admit I got impressed with hearing what I agreed with and did not finish the article
QUOTE;And I’m cognizant of the fact that for every bad behavior I mentioned in my opening list of questions there is an equal, opposite, and potentially more physically threatening form of bad behavior that men can, and do, visit upon women with just as much frequency.” QUOTE;
I strongly disagree with what she says here, much of the list belong to women by a landslide.
Yes the passage you referred to isn’t the way I’ve seen things especially the last sentence about frequency.
But this woman’s had her experiences and I’ve had mine.
I don’t see much point in chastising her for those expressions. Especially given the consessions made at the beginning of the article.
I think Audi is right that we as advocates for men might gain more ground by
With a less aggressive responce to those who oppose our rights.
And for me to say this takes some doing.
I’ve been baying for blood as much as any of us.
Mama is right we need unity.
How can we get anywhere in the fight if we can’t get out of the trench together ?
“if answered honestly, wouldn’t send hands into the air. Including my own. I know I’m guilty on the pest control front. I don’t want to think too hard about some of the others.”
These are not experiences, they are her unacknowledged behaviour toward men.
See what is actually written there? The author maintaining an unwarranted dignity as an author by not including herself in the issue.
She’s got you onside.
This allows you to have an unjustified emotional and sym-pathetic attachment to her work or to relate to it on an irrelevant basis.
So, then she says what she really wants to.
Yes, I’m not just a Feminist, I’m smart one, and you fell for it.
“I’m certain there is not a single one of these questions that, if answered honestly, wouldn’t send hands into the air. Including my own.”
I don’t see that as the author maintaining an unwarranted dignity.
I see that a confession that her and a lot of women are guilty of some nasty behaviour.
Maybe you see it differently but is it worth more wasted megabytes.
What about my question to you @35 about unity.
Let’s talk about that.
One man standing up one at a time gets us nowhere.
And please refer to the future and not the past as much as possible as the future is all we can contribute to now.
@37 is it worth more megabytes?
Yes, it is.
Feminism is slowly leaving more wormen behind, and it becomes more aggressive and more devious. Part of that is a war of words that will be seen on websites.
That shouldn’t be related to as a lack of unity.
There is room for a lot of things, bums on seats, feet on the ground, people in rooms, and perspective, that isn’t achieved by shutting down conversation because you don’t like the style of expression.
Don’t confuse exposure and relevance to media as a whole.
I wasn’t shutting down conversation
I just Asked if the fact that you and I interpreted the sentence
differently was really what matters.
I tried to engage with a ‘where to from here’ question.
Your stuck on the railway tracks mate.
And I’m not sure if it’s feminism leaving women behind or the other way round , but do we have any prominent nz women speaking out against feminist? Can you think of any Well known women in nz that do that?
Or well know men for that matter. ?
What is heard often in political discourse is Virtue Signaling.
In the start of the Daum article discussed above this can be seen in the opening paragraphs.
There is a varied audience reading this looking to take something from it.
Ask yourself what a budding feminist would take from her sister?
Would they see the article the same way as you?
Would they place more importance to the analysis of women or the analysis of men that was glossed over because of a needy grab at what some want to hear.
If I was to take a dispassionate approach to gender war then I’d be giving this piece points for a win to the girls.
10 – 8 big buddies,,,, Muriel Newman surely is one.
41, yes that’s true I’d forgotten about Murial.
She did a great job of the speech on shared
Parenting at a Wellington conference MoMa put on two years ago.
Can you think of any others male or female ?
@39 we had a discussion recently about the relevance of a US Supreme Court election. I could say something similar about the relevance of a 48 year old US essayist. It’s relative to that country and needs some translation.
The US is having a slightly broader discussion than us, and you’re right, you would struggle to find woman in NZ to genuinely speak up to that extent. Mama is a breath of fresh air.
My take on this is that it is kickback to the body count from the MeToo movement – oops we may have over cooked this one.
It’s caused more real life problems for the US than the discussion has here (Who gives a rat’s arse about a couple of solicitors getting cooked in a salacious pie) but they’re still men and they don’t deserve to die for what they did.
I don’t see a lack of unity. We’ve developed a functional underground, where what we do revolves around our life’s.
Yes, we have lacked our voice but of recent there has been a shift in the amount of content and the male perspective in New Zealand media. Perhaps their reaction to MeToo. Better start including the guys before the shit hits fan here too.
Let’s hope that continues.
Hi Mama. I note that at 34 you say:
“I strongly disagree with what she says here, much of the list belong to women by a landslide.”
in reference to the quoted excerpt from Meghan Daum’s article where she says,
“And I’m cognizant of the fact that for every bad behavior I mentioned in my opening list of questions there is an equal, opposite, and potentially more physically threatening form of bad behavior that men can, and do, visit upon women with just as much frequency.”
In the ‘Evidence Based Practice – Gluckman’ thread you today cited Gluckman as saying:
“But policy made in the absence of information and science-based evidence can only be made on the basis of dogma, and is less likely to serve the country well”
Daum is suggesting equal perpetration of bad behaviour and you are suggesting women perpetrate more by a landslide.
With all due respect to both you and Daum I don’t think opinions or anecdotes are worth as much as the science-based evidence that you seem to favour in the other thread.
John Hamel has coordinated a meta analysis of hundreds of published research findings and published this under PASK – the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project.
Very much in short, this meta-analysis shows gender neutrality in acts of intimate partner abuse. (i.e. Men and women hit each other at roughly equal rates.) However men, in simple terms, hit harder and cause 70% of the physical injuries up to and including death.
So, sorry Mama, but the bulk of the research shows that Ms Daum is closer to the truth than you are.
Having said that though, in the Christchurch longitudinal study (of an obviously younger cohort) perpetration of intimate partner abuse was 60% female.
Strawman – when are you going to stop the bullshit.
One must remember the old adage saying: “Seek and you shall find.”
The Dunedin study may be the only study frankly worth it’s findings.
Someone conducting a “meta analysis of hundreds of published research findings” can not possibly have effectively checked any bias or flaw in any of the research and adequately addressed these flaws or bias. It effectively serves more as a compendium as opposed to an in depth scientific study
And if you compare the finding between the two; they are diametrically opposite… almost.
I wonder where the PASK funding came from.?
@29: Hi Downunder. I guess you didn’t accept my apology for being too combative and nor agree to my offer of a truce on leaving personal slurs out of our comments.
Mama commented today on the ‘Living with InJustice’ thread that you, “weave history, societal cause, change and effect into your every sentence.” I agree that you often bring all of those admirable insights to many of your comments. I do find it sad though when you attack people who disagree with your ideas. (Sad, that is for you. It’s water off a ducks back for me.)
#44,,,Hi Audi,,I did not count the numerous list content from Daums’ article, however I would say that I have never met a MAN with as many excuses. Maybe this is how guys do it, the simply everything naturally and that way they learn.
There is no doubt that WOMEN! are Mens weakness,, and dont they know it.
On this site there is indeed room to , to a degree, say what you feel at the time to make a point or get something off your chest.
There are two sides here and they interplay at times, sometimes for humours sake, one side is emotional and the other , well, fact or discussion of other such truth, or non-truth.
The list of more interest is Evan Above @ 16.
#46, Evan Above,, thanks for the list.
@47. Sorry JC, but you seem to be missing the point. The PASK results are an enormous win for men’s rights, are scathing about erroneous feminist research, and are universally hated by feminists. John Hamel is generally revered in international men’s rights circles. The study was undertaken by (from memory) 23 academics over an 18 month period and they considered over 200 of the most rigorous studies. In academia a properly conducted meta-analysis is given far more credence than a single piece of research. It may suit you to cherry-pick a piece of research that you like, but you need to remember that most research conducted into Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) is conducted by Gender Studies faculties and those studies are often deeply flawed. Using cherry-picked research is a game the feminists will win every time. Better methinks to stick with rigorous academically honest studies that supports gender neutrality in IPA. Gender neutrality is the scientific slam-dunk in discrediting ‘Patriarchy’ as being the cause of IPA.
If this a stab in the dark, then it is the dark in which I live, NZ I am going to say, has a unique set of stats,, but shhh, I did nae say this.
@46. Hi Evan. I think I’m telling the truth, not talking bullshit. I’ll happily change my mind if you can provide cogent evidence to the contrary.
I am a bit lost here,,how can there be true stats for Men on the likes of IPA, traditionally, men dont ‘ # me too…so how do they get to be a stat???
# 48,,Audi,,one does not generally use anothers’ conversations to help one with an opinionated interpretation of anothers’ character or intent…just for the record..10-10.
@53 You’d better hope your Mrs never wants a protection order.
One look here and you’d be totally screwed.
@54: As I understand it Mama the best research is carried out by random population sampling. Researchers will contact people chosen randomly and ask questions about intimate partner abuse that may have happened in their relationships (often just in the past 12 months – when memory is more accurate). They will be asked about IPA they perpetrated and/or were the recipients of. Often the questions will be based on the Conflicts Tactics Scale developed by Murray Strauss, as these questions don’t require the respondent to make a judgment about the legality of the acts. The answers given by men and women generally corroborate each others’ responses and that leads researchers to believe that neither gender is under or over reporting in these sorts of studies. It varies from country to country but mutual abuse occurs in 50% to 60% of abusive relationships. The balance are split almost evenly with only the man or only the woman violent. Women compensate for their stature by using weapons much more frequently than men. All violent acts, including extremely violent acts, are perpetrated almost equally by each gender. There is less violence in gay relationships than in heterosexual relationships and more in lesbian relationships. These randomised population studies show that IPA is 10 to 15 times more prevalent than court statistics reveal, but a lot of this is done by repeat offenders and about 85% of couples are completely violence free. These studies show that men considerably under report to the police.
On the other hand feminist research will typically be conducted using a pre-selected sample such as by interviewing only women in a refuge, or when doing random studies only ask women about their experiences as victims and ask men only about how much they perpetrated abuse.
And you wouldn’t want to have an employment dispute and have to defend yourself against similar accusations when you’ve got this recorded online.
I wouldn’t think what you’re doing would be regarded as a sensible thing to be doing.
@55. I can’t agree Mama.
Downunder said of me:
“Audi, you’d be more use nailed to a fucking perch, imitating a deceased parrot.”
How would you respond if he said that about you?
I responded by genuinely and honestly agreeing with what you said in praise of him.
I made no interpretation of his character or intent let alone an opinionated one. I did go on to express my sadness about that attack on me as person. Without blowing my own trumpet I haven’t often seen on this site such a gracious response to such a gratuitous attack… just for the record 🙂
@58 Shrinking violet now, are we?
It was no more than gratuitous advice in response to your request for feedback.
@56 and 58. Thanks for your concerns Evan. But no worries! I’ve been around the Courts for quite a bit now and I can look after myself just fine. Moreover, as with no doubt all the men on this site, I have a clear conscience and… eventually… the truth will out.
Yes there seem to be a few myths and falsehoods about DV an IPV.
Especially the one about nz being the worst in the world for it
@60. Dear nemesis. You are, at times, an almost worthy opponent. I quite like that about you 🙂
59,, Audi I was not asking you to agree, I was stating my interpretation. It came initially as an emotional response to having my conservation used in a vein that lead on to you saying something you then wanted to say to another,,,sorry,,human response can be a bastard and can be used against one.
@62 I’ve written about it here before, and similar concerns have been expressed in other places about the reporting policies the police have been forced to use to create DV statistics.
Statistics created by policy rather than research criteria are as Gluckman suggests based on dogma.
Meaning also, that the statistics your link shows are in fact higher than the prevalence of violence.
#,,62,,Voices,, this from the article you put up…this is what I am eluding to above # 54.
“Men generally do not report such assaults if asked general questions about violence or abuse; older studies frequently failed to ask about specific actions, thus falling afoul of quite different cultural gender norms for what constitutes abuse. Minor assaults perpetrated by women are also a major problem, even when they do not result in injury, because they put women in danger of much more severe retaliation by men.”
There has indeed been hysteria surrounding DV in NZ, I know there are some incredible nasty happenings but I feel there is blurred vision when it comes to the worst assaults, and these worst assaults are in turn assaulting the very respect of Men in NZ.
The Omertà effect perhaps Mama?
There is an sector of society that would not respond on principle along with greater number of males who for various reasons would deny the assault rather than report it.
@64. Thanks very much for the apology Mama. It is a rare and special treat to receive one on this site. I fully understand how the miscommunication occurred. I seemed sarcastic, when I was in fact being genuine in my praise of Downunder.
Various reasons indeed, but Male pride is of course to be upheld, especially when it has just been threatened, but here at what cost..bloody bureaucracy..and they talk about manspaining ,oh sorry, mansplaining.
audi, at 64, I was not apologising to you, I was apologising for my emotive response to my interpretation of your use of my words, it was slightly sarcastic, but you must see this, no?
@70: No Mama. No, no, no. A thousand times no! No sarcasm. None!
Maybe most everybody on this site is so hurt, they are petrified of vulnerability?
If so… that’s really tragic! Really, really… tragic!!
10 – 7 Audi,, ha ha ,, you are funny, have a great snooze.
We need your energy for 3rd of November meeting and beyond .Get it ?
Mama , Audi made a comment at 11:15 last night.
Three minutes later you responded with a comment
That confused me with your lack of understanding.
Audi referenced the comment @70 but I suspect this was an error and he meant to refer to the comment @69.
You know what no means, I’m sure so why did you assume it was a joke.
#73,,Voices, Hi,,, I was confused by his @70 No,no no!!!, as I had just said there may have been a slight sarcasim in my ‘sorry’ in a previous conversation.
I said I thought him funny as he can be over zealous in manner. I was wanting to laugh with him.
..it is confusing with incorrect thread numbers, sorry.
#74, No probs.
thanks for explaining.
#MeToo has happened. We have seen it via media even if that is not well recorded here. We’ve seen an attempted extension of this with the follow-on believe-her movement.
There is some reaction here but no great understanding of the other side, and the basis of this.
The concept we are seeing played out is not an independent fad, or a ‘random creation’ by radicals. It comes from a background philosophy in Feminism;
Within the frame work of women’s rights it is expected that in the first instance a woman would be protected from that situation that makes her a victim.
Anything that did happen shouldn’t have.
The status of victim, and the length of time that this stage takes is not determined by the law in terms of a criminal court case, whether or not that happens.
At some point of recovery and self determination the women rises from her victim hood and seeks a self determined remedy according to her ability to recover, within what ever time frame that is.
Now we’re left in this quandary of civil and criminal remedies.
A criminal case as in MeToo with all its complications or a civil remedy as I would suspect is what is being pushed for in the believe-her follow up movement.
The dust might settle of this particular aspect of the concept but don’t expect the overall concept to change.
When it comes to the consequences for men’s rights there always another question of wilful or woeful ignorance.
Downunder said “believe-her movement”, the point of the movement is to bring to light that there are some horrible men out there that do bad things to women and the same with women. The idea of the movement to shine a light on all the horrible things that happen to people. Both men and women have shared their ‘metoo’ stories.
Another point that Downunder says “no great understanding of the other side, and the basis of this” sometimes the other side of the story is victim blaming and that’s why it’s not always brought to light. Humans have the most amazing power to look past there shitty actions and try and blame the victim.
My own father would never admit the horrible things he did to us as children, he tells a very different version of what happened, I personally know I would hate to share my story than see him say horrible things about me. There should be a safe place to share stories and that’s what the ‘metoo’ movement does.
Looking back at comment #20 A woman wanting to be part of the MeToo movement denying there is a victim (virtuous creature).
In itself MeToo may help some individuals that really could have been helped in other ways but is more likely to create another range of victims.
If there is a percentage of ficticious malicious or otherwise false allegations when there is a complaints criteria why would there not be a greater number when there is no complaints criteria.
I can understand individuals seeing some relevance in this but why would men in general support a movement that encourages a detrimental environment for them and the families and careers they are panticipating in?
That would appear counterproductive to a functioning society.
Is comment #61 what you are looking for Mama?
Hi Downunder, may be it was, but that had percentage of women having DV experience, I was after overall stats for where NZ stands internationally, but I was thinking that we had discussed it here before, n’r mind for now … I heard some scarey changes in the wind for assets after relationship breakup on radio today,,,,hopefully this was not brought about by the child poverty bill just passed????, not in the news headlines for tonight, but it is amazing what you hear on radio sometimes.