We think it’s time for a bit more fun with another round up of recent news. No other media seems to want to present men’s perspectives in news items but thanks to MENZ Issues it happens here.

First up, another incredible pussy pass. This woman Silvia Farcas abused her position of trust as a house cleaner to steal big time from her employers. She offended numerous times in a pattern, violating her employers’ private spaces and stealing heirlooms of deep emotional significance to the victims. For all this offending Silvia Farcas was sentenced to eight months home detention and to pay back, in installments, a small fraction of the value of what she stole. In sentencing the judge referred to the excuses Silvia Farcas made and to this poor woman’s current circumstances now living off our backs on a benefit, but almost apologetically said he had to consider the emotional harm Silvia Farcas caused to her victims. The home detention sentence won’t be much of an inconvenience to Silvia Farcas living on free money from the state, and she will no doubt get frequent permission for outings to WINZ to request more money on whatever pretext. She covered her face to avoid being photographed for the newspaper, so you won’t recognize her when she applies for a job cleaing your house in the future. We have a sex offenders register because it’s mainly men who offend in that manner but we have no thieving employee register to protect us against nasty bitches like this.

And here’s another pussy pass. This mother Kilali Faileli beat her adopted children on various occasions spanning years using weapons such as a broom stick, mop handle and vacuum cleaner parts as well as punching and kicking them. For this she was sentenced to six months’ community detention and 40 hours community work. Community detention means that Kilali Faileli simply needs to stay at home between 7pm and 6am. The light sentence was given despite the fact that Kilali Faileli continued to deny the offending calling the children liars and showing no remorse. The reason a community sentence was considered appropriate was that, wait for it, Faileli had ongoing contact with her daughter’s six children!

Sexist compassion towards women that isn’t extended towards men is evident throughout our society. For example, when news items refer to female offenders they often refer to them as ‘mother of three’ or similar. When is the paternal role of a male offender ever headlined or mentioned in reporting his crime? The feminists may well complain that referring to the maternal role of female offenders is sexist against women, defining them only according to their traditional female roles etc etc. However, the fact is that referring to an offender (or victim) as a parent is likely to cause readers to consider the human value of that person and to feel more compassionate towards her. There is no need to increase compassion towards female offenders because the Courts show an abundance of it already. True gender equality would see fathers’ value and role highlighted to the same extent as for mothers.

And here’s another example of the sugar-and-spice-and-all-things-nice gender. Women are enticing foreign students to meet them for sex or romance, whereupon the students are secretly photographed being sexual with those women then subjected to robbery and extortion. Police blithely report that this form of crime is growing but there’s no mention of enforcement action. Police may as well not bother because these thieving, violent vixens will only get pussy passes anyway. The abuse of sexual power by women over males may be compared with the abuse of physical power by males over women, but this comparison is carefully avoided by feminists. Feminists demand in slut walks and in whitewashing of prostitution, modelling, stripping etc that women should be allowed to use their sexual power as they please, while at the same time pretending such power doesn’t exist and indeed that women are victimized by the effects of the power they wield.

Which brings us on to the not-quite sordid saga of Colin Craig. Sure, Colin’s morality and marital trustworthiness didn’t match the lofty ideals of his political movement and we have little respect for this hypocrisy. However, he admits his human weakness and we respect his wife for her realism and compassion. The most important issue raised by this case is the meaning of sexual harassment. It’s clear from the evidence that (at the very least) Craig’s press secretary Rachel MacGregor did and said nothing at any point to discourage him from his affectionate communications. Her replies (the ones we know about because we can read them) could only be seen to have shown acceptance or encouragement of Craig. There was no good evidence that Craig used any threats or used his rank or status in order to try to coerce Rachel MacGregor into anything. Surely ‘sexual harassment’ doesn’t apply in the absence of coercive behaviour or any indication that the affectionate behaviour is unwanted? The fact is that ‘sexual harassment’ has become such an ill-defined concept by feminists that now it is conveniently applied to almost any courtship approach or affectionate gesture by a man. Tell your female work colleague she looks pretty in her outfit and you’re a sexual harasser. In the Colin Craig case ‘sexual harassment’ is alleged simply on the basis that he was richer and a manager or employer vis-a-vis Rachel MacGregor. However, women tend to choose richer men so most courtships could then be defined as sexual harassment unless the richer person were entirely passive in the process. How many relationships would ever commence if it were impermissible for managers to flirt with subordinates, or people of higher status to flirt with people of lower status? Colin Craig’s testimony today actually sounds credible and explains the strange circumstances in which Rachel MacGregor appeared to encourage and accept his affection at the time then in retrospect accuse him of harassing her. Her ‘hell hath no fury’ response to feeling rejected by Craig when she said she wanted the relationship to become ‘more than it was’ led to her decision to sabotage his campaign by resigning two days before the election and subsequently to attack him as an harasser even though he had reached a (no doubt generous) ‘settlement’ with her in return for her disloyalty. She is not a brave whistle blower as the feminists would have it. No, this is the face of female disloyalty, dishonour and untrustworthiness. It’s nothing unusual. Colin Craig is unwittingly giving us the opportunity to consider and confront these issues, but unfortunately most of our news media are so feminist and/or stupid that the real questions will evade them. Lucky we have MENZ Issues!

This little story concerned a hospital patient at North Shore Hospital whose family was creating problems in a dispute about her care. The story was interesting for the following sentence:

But the medical source said as tensions between the two parties increased – including the family’s refusal at one point to allow the woman to be discharged – hospital bosses issued an instruction that no female nurses were to deal with the family.

That meant of course that only male nurses were allowed to deal with the threatening family. This is likely to be a normal policy also when it comes to drunk or unruly patients in the Emergency Department or elsewhere. But are male nurses paid an additional rate for putting themselves at additional risk? No, of course not, that would be sexist!

The Breast Cancer Foundation has called for free breast screening for women to be extended so that more and younger women can also receive it. Ok, but men get no free screening or any form of free assessment for prostate cancer even though more men die from prostate cancer than women die from breast and cervical cancer combined. For that matter, men get breast cancer too and are less likely to seek medical assessment for early symptoms, so why isn’t free breast screening provided to men? Well we know why, because men don’t matter much and gender equality is a fraud.

Oh no! On top of the man drought we now have a sperm donation drought! NZ women are having to look overseas for sperm, and ‘reproductive tourism’ is booming. Well, isn’t that just another variation on sex tourism, except that the consequences will often be much more serious in that children will be born without the benefit of a relationship with their biological father? Our advice to all men is to avoid donating sperm whether in a bottle or in a vagina, except with a guarantee that the woman is in a stable marital relationship and intends to produce a child who will be raised by two reliable parents who prioritize their commitment to maintaining a family unit.

Sadly for our children however, our government keeps heading in an anti-family direction and promoting irresponsibility and immorality. The latest plan is to allow women to withhold the name of a child’s father from a birth certificate, without any penalty in the free government money they then get on the DPB. The feminist press refer to this as removing the law that ‘penalizes one-night stands’. How utterly unreasonable to expect any woman to know who fucked her to cause a pregnancy! How sexist to require a woman to consider a child’s need for a relationship with the biological father. Fathers are unnecessary anyway, aren’t they? How utterly unreasonable to expect anything at all from any woman, you control-freak misogynists! Women should be paid by the state as of right and should be allowed to do anything they want.

And our final bit of fun today concerns this appalling display of men’s power and privilege shown by a male-only barber shop in Sydney. The audacity of these men believing they should have any spaces that are not invaded by women! What about the hurt feelings of the rejected women, you cads! The feminists were up in arms, labeling the shop’s owners as misogynists etc etc, but of course didn’t think to make any mention of the numerous women’s only groups, clubs, gyms and services in existence. Gender equality is important in the ways that suit women but clearly not otherwise. And some genders are more equal than others.