Gentlemen – It’s time to close your Westpac account & move your mortgage to another bank.
Westpac say men don’t work hard or long enough.
Westpac fails to take into account men usually have physical jobs and a buggered when they finally get home. That and we build fences, service cars, mow lawns, trim trees, paint and a lot of other stuff.
Men who earn the bulk part of the income. Pay most of the tax that supports the nation.
There are many things we can’t do, but moving accounts and business away from companies we can. I am talking to my broker to move my mortgage to a bank that likes men. I suggest you do the same.
Westpac, see ya latter mate.
I remember it well, when someone started this Rubbish during Clark’s days and Garth George wrote a column along these lines.
I get the feeling someone has a file of that period and is busy promoting the same gender discord all over again.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 17th May 2021 @ 7:50 am
Must be government deciding on who the IRD bills, police bills get paid to.
Quick some propaganda for free.
Pick my bank, nod, wink.
Bankers are supposed to be intelligent.
Nope, just an idiot who can’t see the truth.
Or does he/she.
Stereotyping.
Women are lazy, some very untidy.
Men do far more hours at work than women.
The small gap in house chores, doesn’t account the difference.
In contributions to society by men’s paid work.
Soon men will be required to do 51% of house chores.
And work extra hours, so they can afford rent.
And support the hardly working mothers.
So some drop kick patsy can claim equality for women.
If men don’t comply.
Sentence them to an unplanned to him pregnancy.
Then Child Support.
So the slave knows his place in society.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 17th May 2021 @ 6:08 pm
Complaint: Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if men did more at home, Rob Stock 05:00, May 17 2021
Dear Deputy Stuff Editor,
I am writing to complain about your headline, ‘Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if men did more at home’ by Rob Stock published 5 AM, May 17 2021 .
I believe the headline breaches principle 7 of the New Zealand Media Council, ‘Statement of Principles’ which I have pasted below.
“7. Discrimination and Diversity
Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest, and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting.”
I refer you, in particular to “Publications should not… ….place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting” and to where your headline has done exactly this to ‘men’ as a gender. The headline openly discriminates against men by implying they are all lazy and entitled.
If we remove the context of the article from the headline and apply it to other groups we can see how inappropriate the headline is. For example:
‘Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if MAORI did more at home’,
‘Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if WOMEN did more at home’
‘Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if PACIFIC ISLANDERS did more at home’
‘Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if PENSIONERS did more at home’
Each of these hypothetical examples come across as bigoted and discriminatory toward the mentioned groups. Therefore, it is not any different for your headline, which refers to men in the same bigoted and discriminatory way.
If we look at the content of the article itself, we see it is well written, informative and draws attention to the matter of work traditionally done by women not being valued by men or society in general. There is a real opportunity here, to educate about the issue and draw critical discussions around finding a solution. Sadly though, your headline has alienated 50% of your readership from looking at the article, the men it was intended for.
To remedy this situation, I request that Stuff.co.nz refrains from publishing headlines openly attacking men in ways it would not do so for any other group.
I also recommend you publish an article investigating the 69% of suicides, 96% of workplace fatalities and 94% of the prison population who are men, and the economic jump Aotearoa would gain if they were alive, or free and able to contribute to society.
I await your considered response.
Yours faithfully
Roland Silenus
Re: Complaint: Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if men did more at home, Rob Stock 05:00, May 17 2021
Hi Roland,
I have considered your complaint.
The headline accurately reflects a key point of the Westpac/Deloitte report and we reject your assertion that the headline refers to men in a bigoted and discriminatory way.
The headline in no way breaches principle 7 of the New Zealand Media Council Statement of Principles, which stipulates that issues of gender and other groups are legitimate subjects for discussion in the media where they are relevant and in the public interest. That is clearly the case here.
The story is based on a significant piece of research and adds to the ongoing conversation about how families manage their household obligations, and the economic consequences of that.
Thanks again for taking the time to write.
Kind regards,
Chief News Director – Business
Comment by Roland Silenus — Sun 23rd May 2021 @ 8:26 pm
“A significant piece of research”
How many times have we seen this?
Some fabricated bullshit to suit the occasion.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 24th May 2021 @ 11:30 am
@3 Roland
Please send your letter and its response to all news outlets including Daily Mail.
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 24th May 2021 @ 1:42 pm
When dealing with the media, understand this.
They are experts at writing bullshit.
They can endlessly be bigoted.
Article by article.
And get away with it.
It however is clear, if one could be bothered.
To take a time period sample.
Say all articles in a month.
A guess.
90% are genderless.
9.99% expresses negative comments about men.
0.01% slipped past the editor, or reports on a female in court.
So yes they are bigots, without any doubt.
But proving it, with one article is highly unlikely.
No matter how clearly bigoted.
Even if bigoted, they would claim it’s not.
The article is clearly corrupt logic.
Far easier to expose.
They find a result they like.
And presumed a cause, to suit there hatred of men.
Fact.
If women worked, paid as much as men.
Many billions more would be added to the economy.
They also didn’t explain how, they made the assumption about money.
How exactly would they add this money to the economy?
They used an imaginary number.
And used it as a headline.
If the male was at work, getting paid.
But had to not work to do housework.
The economy would reduce by that amount.
They didn’t account for that.
Thankfully Westpac has closed down where I live.
The hate men bank, left town.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 24th May 2021 @ 6:08 pm
@LukeNZ At this stage, the intent of my letter was to trigger a dismissive response so I could then lodge a formal complaint with the New Zealand Media Council i.e. they require a response from the publication before you lodge a complaint with them. I have now lodged that and will update you here with the outcome. I am not holding my breath for the desired outcome. I do however see this as the beginning of a long fight.
I am also investigating grounds for a grievance under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1993 , for this or any similar articles.
Comment by Roland Silenus — Tue 25th May 2021 @ 11:48 pm
There have been a string of complaints recently that have been upheld for good reasons.
Unacceptable industry standards and incompetence in an confused industry.
It’s an annoying process that only exists through the current media cooperation on the basis of professional association.
Something we would likely see disappear in a more socialist regime so make use of the process while you can.
Comment by Evan Myers — Wed 26th May 2021 @ 5:19 am
Correction to my previous comment. The section of the Human Rights Act 1993
refered to should have been s 21(1)(a):
“21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination
(1)For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—
(a)sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:”
The rest of this section covers the other areas discrimination is not allowed. 21(1)(a)
is the part that protects men.
Comment by Roland Silenus — Wed 26th May 2021 @ 8:20 am
@7 Roland, thanks for that. I look forward to hearing it.
I was however thinking if men choose stayed at home on a Saturday to do the housework rather than go to work, the cost to the economy would drop more than the $1.5 billion for sure.
You should ask how they calculated the $1.5 billion.
Comment by Lukenz — Wed 26th May 2021 @ 3:31 pm
While you often hear how violent men are in the media and via support groups for women, the pressure that men have faced for hundreds of years to be a family’s primary provider is overlooked. It’s a stressful burden that last long after the children have flown the coop. And Westpac come up with this rubbish.
Comment by ErasingDad — Wed 26th May 2021 @ 11:49 pm
You’re quite right, Erasing Dad. In 50 years men have gone from primary bread winner to the underdog earner.
During that process many women who started out in the comfortable lifestyle of housewife have had to face the prospect of returning to work … and many just didn’t want to. That in itself caused issues for families whose budgets got tight and some women simply demanded men work harder.
At the same time the feminist propaganda had not only been accusing men of being useless and violent it has been telling women to exert their rights and demand he do half the housework.
At the sharp end, you would have a woman who didn’t want to go to work to help fund the family, maybe even had another child to avoid that, still demanded the man not only works harder but did half the housework, and then they go on the DPB whinging about a deadbeat dad when the marriage fails – as if men aren’t entitled to some sanity.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 27th May 2021 @ 7:29 am
It was worth a try. It won’t by the last. I encourage you all to do the same.
CASE NO: 3052
RULING BY THE MEW ZEALAND MEDIA COUNCIL ON THE COMPLAINT OF CHRIS RIGBY AGAINST STUFF
FINDING: INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO PROCEED
DATE: MAY 2021
Roland Silenus complained about the headline on a story published on Stuff on May 17, 2021 which read Economy would make a $1.5 billion jump, if men did more at home.
The story was based on a report of data from a nationwide survey of 2400 people which found women were doing more than their fair share of unpaid work at home and that this represented a $1.5 billion a year drag on the economy.
Mr Silenus said the headline breached Media Council Principle 7 (discrimination and diversity) which says: Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publication may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting.
He asked that Stuff should refrain from publishing headlines “openly attacking men in ways it would not do so for any other group.”
Stuff chief news director – business, Roeland van den Bergh, said the headline accurately reflected a key point of the report. It was not bigoted or discriminatory and did not breach Principle 7.
There is nothing to suggest the headline was inappropriate or gratuitous. It was supported by the content of the article that followed, and did not infringe either the discrimination or the headline principles. While some might disagree with the inferences taken from the research, this was a legitimate summary of the material being reported.
There are insufficient grounds to proceed.
Comment by Roland Silenus — Tue 1st June 2021 @ 12:06 pm
Dear Roland,
Thank you. Thank you what you did. It may not seem like it, but each shovel load men like you do moves towards bring this nonsense portrayed against men into main stream.
Comment by Lukenz — Tue 1st June 2021 @ 9:06 pm
@Lukenz. Thank you. I’ll keep doing this.
A little about me: I am studying law at present and have experience and knowledge in effective
campaign organising. I am happy to share that knowledge and experience here in a way that will benefit
our cause.
Believe it or not, from a legal perspective it is actually good my
complaint was rejected. It shows that NZ’s free speech laws are working and
that we can justify expressing our unpopular opinions without being legally attacked.
As you point out, the real intent her is to educate and gradually change the public
narrative on men’s issues.
That’s way we all need to keep going no matter how hard tje struggle may seem
Comment by Roland Silenus — Fri 4th June 2021 @ 11:37 am
PS If you want to understand further what I meant about our free speech laws working, google “Wall v Fairfax 2018 HC”
Comment by Roland Silenus — Sat 5th June 2021 @ 3:28 pm
Yes. There have been some significant cases and even paragraphs within judgements in the last decade but that I think is far beyond the comprehension of our media, these days.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 5th June 2021 @ 5:53 pm