Men’s Summit
Here is your opportunity to create change on April 6th. Politics is about power and this summit is an essential platform in creating the ground work for a healthy future.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
59 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Is there a dress code? I have a SPERM T-shirt. SPERM = “Society for protection of rights for men”. It was a gift from a female friend, but seems apropos. And I’m sure I have seem womyn wearing shirts sporting offensive and hateful slogans. I hesitate because I realise that genders are not equal in New Zealand – but isn’t that the theme of the meeting?
Comment by Jerry — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 3:28 pm
No dress code as far as I’m aware except as would apply in any NZ public place. Your t-shirt sounds good!
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 4:00 pm
2nd Men’s Summit – Male Wellbeing and Gender Equality
Thursday 6th April 2017
Grand Hall Parliament Wellington
Programme
• 9.00am Maori Welcome, Host Kelvin Davis, MP for Te Tai Tokerau
• Facilitator Ken Clearwater , Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse
• 9.15am Summit Focus, Donald Pettitt, Canterbury Men’s Centre
• 9.30am- Bruce Tichbon, Families Apart Require Equality (30 mins)
• 10:00am- Tane Ora, Riki Niania Maori Men’s Health (30mins)
• 10.30am- Warwick Pudney, AUT Fathering (30 mins)
• 11:00am Cookie Break
• 11:15am Dr Muriel Newman, former ACT MP, Shared Parenting (40 mins)
• 12 Noon Hans Laven, Psychologist – Male Suicide (40 mins)
• 12:45am Greg Newbold, Canterbury University, Feminism and Rape Law (40 mins)
• 1:30pm LUNCH
• 2:00pm Promotional, Poster and Networking Session – Men’s Groups, Charities, Social Services – Personal Introductions (1 min)
• 2:30 pm Summit Recommendations – Don Pettitt, Canterbury Men’s Centre.
• 3:00pm Cookie Break
• 3:15pm Members of Parliament Reply, – Representatives from ACT, The Green Party, Labour, Maori Party, National, New Zealand First and United Future. (10 minutes each)
• 4:30pm Officials Reply –Judges, Commissioners, Executives and NGOs (10 mins each)
• 5:30pm Thanks – Kerry Bevin, Ministry of Menz Affairs
• 6:00 Backbenchers Restaurant, just across the road from Parliament. Recommended.
• Dinner and drinks here not included in the costs for the Summit
• The Men’s Summit is a NOT FOR PROFIT event.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 4:02 pm
P.S. The organizers have gone with the title ‘2nd Men’s Summit’ presumably because this is the second in the current series. However, we acknowledge the two Summits in the early 2000’s and their importance for the men’s movement in NZ.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 4:05 pm
Thanks for the info about the speakers. I don’t see any in the list who would benefit from my T-shirt. Already met some and would like to meet others.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 27th February 2017 @ 4:28 pm
If you read the speeches from Kelvin Davis at the time of his election, which were centered on how focused he was on women and domestic violence, you have to do a double take, when you see his name as ‘host of a Men’s Summit’.
[Slaps himself]
[Reminds himself that he is a politician]
Comment by downunder — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 7:28 am
And of course it’s election year.
Comment by downunder — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 7:29 am
6, yes your correct.
I have spoken with Kelvin about Male Victims of DV and got the impression he would like to do more to build awareness.
I’m looking forward to this summit meeting as the theme is equality.
Wasn’t it about this time three years ago Cunny was apologising for being a man?
Davis has tried to bring attention to the difficulties incarcerated men here and overseas experience.
This was overshadowed of course by a bunch of women walking out of parliament two days in a row complaining that they’re all said to be on the side of rapists.
Anything to distract attention from a male issue.
Davis is probably our best hope for awareness and public enlightenment.
I don’t expect he would have the stones to challenge the red fems but I intend to give him encourgment to do just that.
Can you think of any other politician that might be worthy of a men’s issues vote?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 11:55 am
At least Kelvin Davis is supporting a men’s initiative. Yes, there will be an extent to which acknowledging women’s issues is a requirement for any politician in the feminist era. However, people generally are waking up to feminist selfishness and misinformation as well as to male issues and we will see this increasing. Indeed, many MRAs were once spouting the feminist lines and woke up. Kelvin Davis deserves some respect and gratitude now rather than cynicism.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 11:57 am
I do not like that we are conditioned / brainwashed into referring to “Feminism” as if it was a defined universally accepted set of avtively and openly persued principles. I find that nobody can give me a definition for feminism, which all other feminists will agree with. Feminism at best is a private delusion created in the minds of most females and some males and each instance of defining is arrived at with different inputs and different conclusions. Indeed Feminism is has no substance at all – so lets stop referring to it as if it does. We agree that many women we respect claim to be feminists, and yet those same women will distance themselves from the most extreme son-hating others. Feminism is as unified as are all the religions through out history on this planet.
As for politicians, I do not trust any – but like USA with the Trump – Clinton choice – thems all we got.
Comment by Jerry — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 12:14 pm
Jerry @ 10: Who is referring to feminism as if it has an accepted or realistic definition? I frequently challenge those who trot out the old claim that feminism is aimed at achieving gender equality, because few feminists have ever shown much interest in gender equality.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 2:40 pm
mAN X nORTON @11: I think it is universally referred to that way. Individual women, many males, and certainly its been in the news that way over the years – even recently there have been particular defenses of it. Then on YouTube, STUFF, Herald Al-Jazeera and even TASS. But as I point out, I do not find anyone who can relate some definition which many others will come close to agreeing with. Like religion, everybody sees it differently and so its really a meaningless term. These days when I hear someone say they are a feminist {or believe in feminism} I ask them for a definition which all others will agree with – I’ve yet to be given any definition. I di it just to point out how meaningless the term is – try to get them to think what flags they choose to march under.
Comment by Jerry — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 6:06 pm
About the MEN’s SUMMIT. Are there options for people to attend the sessions only, not the Meals drinks, social etc?
I could only stay until returning homeward around 5pm 90 miles away. I’m on a highly unusual diet requirements – so I cannot have anything not in my lunch-box. And then there is nobody to keep my old decrepit dog supervised and fed. He came from the SPCA and haven’t the heart to kennel him, coz I reckon he will feel hes back at the SPCA.
Comment by Jerry — Sat 11th March 2017 @ 6:19 pm
#9 Peter Dunne received considerable support on the basis that he was supporting the men’s initiative, but afterwards shit on men at every turn.
Muriel Newman actually had a piece of proposed legislation, but ask her how mad dog Pebble axed the bill, when it was drawn from the ballot a second time.
Comment by downunder — Sun 12th March 2017 @ 5:58 am
Downunder @9; You are quite right. Dunne also made noises like he believed in FAMILY too. I voted on that basis and recall being utterly betrayed. Disrespected Dunne ever since. Just another Machiavellian politician.
Comment by Jerry — Sun 12th March 2017 @ 8:24 am
#14 and #15. Don’t forget Dunnothing promised way back in 2004 that he was going to make the Child Support system fairer. When did it change ? 2016 TWELVE years later AND he wasn’t even in charge of it then. He’s a weak, simpering mangina.
Comment by golfa — Sun 12th March 2017 @ 8:30 am
Forget about the rhetoric and follow the money.
The bodies of men, law of the person, our lives are on the New Zealand balance sheet for four billion $4,000,000,000.00
And the IRD is busy collecting that from our brothers, and if they die in the process, not an eyelid of a politician is blinked.
AND you kiss the feet of politicians for what, another twenty years of the same?
Comment by downunder — Sun 12th March 2017 @ 9:07 am
Support whatever politician you want or none at all. I simply suggested some respect and gratitude for one real action that Kelvin Davis has done: sponsoring a conference focused on men’s issues.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 12th March 2017 @ 10:05 am
In Latin there is a collective noun for Roman Senators:
Patres et Conscripti
Translated as you can probably guess is:
to conscript the fathers
Comment by downunder — Sun 12th March 2017 @ 10:22 am
One can only guess the future.
In regard to Kelvin Davis we have information than can help increase our accuracy of the guess we make.
He is a White Ribbon ambassador.
His opinions are moderated by rabid feminists in the Labour Party and others.
So he supports the position that it is men that are responsible for domestic violence.
Despite research exposing that being a myth.
He considers any sexual act is always something that requires men to get consent from the female.
This completely ignores the facts.
Males are forced into having sex more often than women are. iE raped.
Then a crime only females commit (non consential conception, indecent assualt) involving a minimum of 40% of pregnancies, males gave no consent.
Females according to Greg Newbolds figures who have sexual relations with male children have about 1 in 60 of a chance of being prosecuted compared to men who abuse female children.
I guess he will spew out Labours feminist, White Ribbon retoric in introducing the issues facing men.
He will ignor.
Access and custody issues.
Sex offending laws that are descriminatory.
Mass falsifying of birth certificates.
Government support of pregnancy without consent. Especially those involving deception, or other sex without consent situations.
He will ignor the link between pregnancy without consent and domestic violence.
He will ignor the link between men’s fears of paternity and domestic violence.
He will ignore the fact that males are overwhelmingly the victims of financial crimes, with the offender overwhelmingly women. With vertualy no prosecutions.
He will likely not mention any link between suicide and family court, access, conception, financial deprivation, or education failure that has removed male employment and career oppertunities.
The list goes on and on.
If Kelvin Davis starts by saying.
New Zealand men are the most descriminated and abused members of our society.
He could suprise me.
I guess that won’t happen.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 10:26 am
According to MP Poto Williams’s website:
However it must be remembered that there were 312 deaths from family violence last year and they were all preventable,“ says Poto Williams.
Can anyone hazard a guess as to where she might be getting her statistics From?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 12:42 pm
D J Ward @20; Thanks for that info. Certainly informs me and changes my view drastically. Given the abuse my most harmed daughter received from White-Ribbon in front of police {and in NZ thats okay} I accuse them and all supporters of being hypocrits and having no ethical moral compass at all regarding these issues. And no! I would not agree with anyone who might argue that its fair having all sides represented – when did White-Ribbon extend such an equal and respectful invitation to Men’s lobby? – and when would they give a men’s supporter a respectful considered hearing? Thanks D J Ward you saved me wasting $ going to Wellington.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 12:52 pm
I will be proud to tell my daughter that after I lost the right in family court to be her parent, I went to parliament and spoke up about the injustice in the hope that other dads and children don’t lose out so easily.
I will be travelling from Auckland to Welington for this rare opportunity.
I haven’t booked a ticket yet. If anyone is wanting to go but struggling to afford then I’ll drive my Work van down or if a few want to I will shout us a minivan, there and back. Chuck in what you can for gas. I’ve got one of those mega sized tents,we can find a camp ground, rough it for two nights then head back up.
Bill 02108871800 Text and I’ll ring you back cos I’m working.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 2:26 pm
#21
La La Land.
#22
Kelvin may be the organiser and be pushing a feminist pram.
But there are many other speakers.
Any meeting is better than no meeting.
MOMA is on the list.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 3:58 pm
#22 Jerry. I have found Kelvin Davis to be a reasonable man, i.e. he listens to reason and if a good argument is put forward he will listen and debate the issue. The Men’s Summit is for learning and discussion. If you attend you will have a chance to support the speakers you like and put your contrary ideas forward to those in attendance. Black and white thinking will get us no where. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks exactly the same as I do about feminism or any other dogma. If it was Dr Neville Robertson organising the event I might agree with you.
Comment by Minstrel — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 4:57 pm
Minstrel @25; Re Kelvin Davis being a reasonable man. No reasonable thinking trustworthy person can be a White-ribbon ambassador. Taints the whole affair for me. You are free to make your own choice.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 5:18 pm
How could a White-Ribbon ambassador see a problem with this?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/90374283/protest-at-parliament-against-rape-culture-in-schools
Comment by Jerry — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 6:34 pm
Jerry, if you are a reasonable man then you are a prime candidate to attend the summit and contribute. We need diversity of thinking in attendance.
Comment by Minstrel — Mon 13th March 2017 @ 9:00 pm
Minstrel @28; So if I don’t attend then you would say I’m not a reasonable man. Sure I have a lot of experience at the coal face and have a lot of personal and family damage to cope with on a long term basis. I have been out in protests relating to the family court and family violence, gender equality. I have been violently menaced by a nobby mangina brandishing a chainsaw. We have protested when no others turned up. But I’d not be a reasonable man if I missed this occion based on my experiences and good judgement. I cannot treat hypocrits as reasonable intelligent people or worthy of respect – or for that matter “my equal”. You might read Machiavelli’s book “The Prince”. It describes Power and how to keep it – such that after 500 years its still the go-to bible for world and business leaders. Speakers such as Hans Laven are worth hearing, and my hat off to them for trying, but I do not believe they sew their seeds on fertile ground when White-Ribbon ambassadors are involved. Nor do I believe that any male friendly speaker or attendee will receive a fair hearing. To the contrary the Rape-Culture {Machiavellian} rent-a-crowd of extremists might well attend and shut the whole thing down, and most likely with police and political approval. Happened before, and take a look at that STUFF item. That was also reported on National and Concert programmes yesterday. No I feel a thinking man puts his effort where it has a fair hearing and is likely to at least get through to another person and cause them to review their beliefs. I have no doubt I personally could trounce Kelvin Davis in a one-on-one confrontation using facts and logic. But I’m unlikely to get that chance, and nobody would hear him retreat. But he will have the stage, the microphone and the audience. He will take time better used by others.
Comment by Jerry — Tue 14th March 2017 @ 4:58 am
#27 Rape culture?
How about this one.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/90385089/woman-blackmailed-man-for-money
“When spoken to by police, Kerr admitted threatening the man, but said it was just a joke and she was not going to go through with her threats.”
Lie.
She took the money.
She did go trough with her threat.
“Judge Russell ordered a pre-sentencing report and a drug and alcohol report, and Kerr’s home would be assessed for an electronically monitored sentence.”
WOW
No prison term?
How many years would have he got?
Women like this make real cases of rape harder to prosecute.
With the judge intending to be so lenient.
Maybe is not a rape culture we should be concerned with.
As the offending is harshly punished and the offenders considered abhorrent.
Clearly we have a false rape claim culture.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 14th March 2017 @ 10:53 am
I think the term ‘rape culture’ and “false rape claim culture” are not helpful.
What we do need is plain communication and plain consent. Yes should mean yes and no should mean no to everyone.
Several foolish boys have caused problems for themselves, their school and men generally with their stupid comments on Facebook. Good on the Wellington College boys who called them on their stupidity.
Good on the young men and women who rallied yesterday at parliament. It is important that within our schools and families children are taught to be explicit about consent.
The story above probably has much more depth to it than suggested. The man clearly was foolish with earlier payments. The woman is clearly with history and multiple demons of her own. There is no indication from Judge Russell in his seeking reports of his intentions. He is informing himself of options available. Clearly the revolving door this woman has been though in the past has not encouraged her to more social behaviour. Even if she is given the 14 year maximum for blackmail she will come out to join us in society after 6-7 years. That costs we taxpayers $600-700,0000. Surely a decent probation officer, some community support and goodwill from us all has a much better chance of a more social positive outcome for everyone.
I doubt anyone be they male or female is likely to do more than a few months inside for a crime such as this.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 14th March 2017 @ 11:20 am
I think “false rape culture” describes the social and political anti-male epidemic very accurately.
Rape culture is a term I find offensive and insulting to NZ men.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 14th March 2017 @ 11:54 am
Allan @31:
– When a judge asks for a report concerning possible home detention that sentence is usually exactly what is planned and given as long as the home address and circumstances are acceptable.
– Some men have received substantial prison sentences for blackmail while others have received community sentences. The seriousness of the threats seems to be relevant. In this case the threat was to make a false complaint of rape likely to put the target in prison. In my book this is a very serious threat that deserves a moderate punishment especially when committed by someone with a significant criminal history. But this is a female offender and the pussy pass will reign. Your reasoning for lenient treatment of her by the court could equally apply to any offender and would rule out providing an example to others that might discourage similar offending. This woman will get lenient treatment and she will probably reoffend similarly in future. It’s so easy for women to make false allegations of sexual assault and rape under current laws and overly broad definitions.
– Consent is not a simple matter as you and the feminists would have it. Let’s get real. Sex is not a cortical brain rational decision but a process of letting one’s animal emotions take over. A person may feel uninterested in sex initially but develop that interest through the pleasure of being touched and being desired. Many women would feel uncomfortable if their male date started asking whether it’s ok to kiss her or pash her up rather than just initiating it, and he is likely to be left on the heap as a clumsy and unconfident male. Consent will always rely on a process in which one party (usually the male) takes the emotional (and now legal) risk of reaching out and attempting to initiate sexual interaction and the other party either participates or declines. Provided both parties are capable of withholding consent and communicating this, a clear verbal or physical decline is a reasonable criterion for determining consent to be absent. The lack of any such decline is a reasonable criterion for determining consent to be present, but clear verbal consent is an unreasonable precondition for sexual initiation. Going along with sexual activity then suddenly saying “no” may well be a legal right but it’s not necessarily morally right depending on when in the process it happens. It can be compared with letting someone jump off your diving board then withdrawing permission to enter your pool. Further, the idea of interrupting a sexually interactive process to talk about and to gain ‘explicit consent’ for each new step is ridiculous; it would jolt the participants into the human intellectual brain and thereby seriously damage the sexual process. Although this unrealistic behaviour is insisted on under feminist ideology (and our complicit legislators and courts), very few females will ever practise it. It’s a recent rule designed it seems as just another weapon with which to attack men when convenient.
– In the case of the naughty boys from Wellington College, one matter that has been absent from the debate is that of their right to free speech. The boys made up some story about something there was no evidence they had ever actually done. Nearly every tv program and every movie we watch involved someone making up a story about something they didn’t actually do, usually such things as murder and violence. The college boys and their colleagues in the closed Facebook group also expressed critical opinions about feminism. They have been treated as if they don’t have the right to hold and express opinions simply because those opinions don’t conform to feminist doctrine. This is a very small step away from being disallowed to express an opinion contrary to religious doctrine. However, when the college boys encouraged other college boys to have sex with drunk girls, that (and only that) went outside their legal right to the extent it was inciting criminal behaviour. It would be quite correct for them to be held responsible for that, and quite reasonable for it to be dealt with through a reprimand and education about the law.
– Yes, the people who protested outside parliament had every right to do so and are welcome to do so, no matter how fallacious and misguided their cause.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 14th March 2017 @ 9:06 pm
Well my point was that DJ Ward identified Kelvin Davis as a White-Ribbon ambassador. In my world both sides of this fence are absolutely incompatible and there is no way a person could be both ; Sympathetic to the rights/welfare of males – and also a White-Ribbon ambassador. It shows a fatal flaw in such a person’s character that its a waste of time listening to their apologetics. The March I highlighted had a link with White-Ribbon and it is an example of how our world hates men. However, if you want a laugh to lighten things up, you might view the URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUezzUZYD70 ; which is a female Chinese comedian – Amy Wong. I think you all would enjoy it.
Comment by Jerry — Wed 15th March 2017 @ 4:39 am
Remember that Kelvin Davis is only the host of this conference. To use that meeting room at parliament an MP needs to be the host and invitations to attend need to come from that MP. Davis agreed to a request to fill the hosting role, presumably because he has some awareness and sympathy, however confused, regarding men’s issues. No other MP has lifted a finger to acknowledge or support the men’s movement, except Muriel Neuman a long time ago now. Regardless, Davis’ role is only ceremonial and the conference has been organised by others to advance men’s welfare and rights. Some of the speakers will be challenging for the current orthodoxy and my understanding is that it was considered useful to do this in a parliamentary facility where other MPs were most likely to attend, hear and respond. It’s really important that they get a good turnout.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 15th March 2017 @ 10:54 am
Man X norton @35; I Wouldn’t shake Davis’s hand. But you are right. Its worth a go. Who knows, maybe you can give him cause to rehabilitate himself. Its not like anyone with power and influence will listen, wave a magic wand and we all can live happily ever after as equals etc. Hey was that a flock of pigs flying by……… Thing is even those with seats in Parliament will soon find themselves out on the street, if they become even slightly vocal about equality, justice for males and of course the family unit.
However something has happened with me and I will not be able to attend now. Good luck.
Comment by Jerry — Wed 15th March 2017 @ 1:03 pm
I just got an email with some very dissapinting news about the men’s summit arrangements.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 20th March 2017 @ 4:37 pm
NZ Politicians are cowards.
Not one is brave enough to give men a voice.
We should send them a box of docking rings.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 20th March 2017 @ 5:30 pm
Ha! Good idea DJ Ward. You hold them down and I’ll slip the docking rings on (after I put gloves on of course). (Just joking, I would never assault a politician!)
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 20th March 2017 @ 7:40 pm
downunder @19 – It translates as “The conscripts and fathers”, there is no verb there 🙂
Comment by martin — Mon 10th April 2017 @ 8:37 am
@40 The Latin phrase is the collective noun for the Senate – the literal translation being a reference to how they addressed each other in the Senate, “Fathers and Conscripts”
The English interpretation is Conscript Fathers, using the adjective sense of our English word, conscript.
In terms of political purpose, I’ve summerised that as
to conscript the fathers
which was very much the case in that era.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 11th April 2017 @ 6:05 am
Downunder @41: Yes, ‘conscript fathers’ involves the term ‘conscript’ as an adjective. The literal translation is simply ‘fathers and conscripts’. While it may well be accurate that fathers were conscripted, the phrase does not mean that. Your summerizzation (or is it winterisation; check your English spelling…) is an ‘alternative fact’ implying a new meaning that you have invented.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 11th April 2017 @ 8:26 am
Really Man X Norton.
Take it up with Oxford, I’m just a parrot.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 11th April 2017 @ 8:56 am
Some predictably negative press from AUT from an -“infiltrator” at the men’s summit.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/03-05-2017/among-the-masculinists/
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 1:23 pm
The Spinoff article is a good example of the way our society usually reacts to male distress and victimisation.
I find it hard to imagine a report on a similar women’s conference taking this tone – we instinctively sympathise and look for solutions when reacting to female suffering. This tendency has long been profitably exploited by feminist organisations.
When men complain about unfair treatment however, the most common response seems to be “kick them while they’re down”.
Eamonn Marra does make an interesting point about the disconnect between young anti-feminist men and the older masculinist activists who contribute to MENZ. I wonder why this is so?
PS: I’m a bit gutted to learn that some people might consider cycling to be a “feminist act”, considering that I probably spend more time on my bike these days than on men’s activism.
Comment by JohnPotter — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 6:14 pm
45,
Re your seccond last paragraph,
I think its because the younger men feel that thier issues are different.
They are accused of sexism with regards to role play within-“gaming”.
Some of them spend as much or more time in virtual reality scenarios as the real world.
They often use ‘avatars’ wheras we just use a non de plume.
They are criticised for their overly masculine avatars at times as they’re said to be violent symbols of their true selves.
Their avatars focus attention on the female avatars that display feminine traits and so the textbox next to the action is full of childish sexist and anti-sexist comments in a bizzare but somehow -safe format. It seems that some girls like the bad boys that stick up for themselves,althought they usually proclaim that all the ones they’re only interested in are the social justice warriors (white knights).
Similar to the way that the older feminists decree about manspreading, mansplaining and issues of male manners and respect then go home to the latest version of 50 shades of grey with a vino or three.(rape fantasy)
Its how the kids meet these days.
I learned all this from youtube Karen Straughn and the honey badgers.
They are surprisingly, quite well known in the mra if ‘hit-rate’ is the measure, they will be doing a presentation at the gold coast mens summit in june.
Eamon Marra’s article isn’t the worst i’ve seen.
For example there was one female professor who reviewed the Red pill movie and discribed it (without seeing it) as – men telling you that if we just let them have sex with whoever and whatever we want, we wouldnt have to rape you.
Eamon though- sadly also chose his summary without regard to the content.
For example he wrote “THERE WAS NOT A THOUGHT GIVEN TO WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES OR FEELINGS ONCE THROUGHOUT THE DAY.”
But included “After a particularly noxious beneficiary-bashing speech, under the guise of an examination of shared parenting, from former ACT MP Muriel Newman, lunch was called.”
Why wasn’t Muriels “thoughts and experiences” counted in his summary?
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 9:15 pm
This is what Eamonn says about himself, to sell his time: http://www.comedy.co.nz/comedians/profiles/eamonn-marra/
I seem to recall listening to submissions given to Parliamentary Subcommittee, regarding familycaught. One of the submissions was given by three ladies, one an associate professor of law. Ignoring the frequency/pitch of the voices, what was said sounded exactly like the stereotype of complaining fathers…….
I don’t mean to be rude, but familycaught$ judges are more usefully seen as clowns and thieves, so Eammon is the real thing (but without the thief part). I appreciate a good comedian far more than I have appreciated any familycaught$ judge that I have ever seen. Wonder what I would think of Eammon? I am sure it would be better.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 8:44 am
For all of the time he put into attending and thinking about Men’s Conference, he seemed to criticise and use sarcasm, but to have no positive suggestions at all. Unfortunately, this seems to sum up his approach in this situation.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 8:53 am
I’m lost, was he trying to be funny?! :p
Comment by martin — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:51 am
Marra saw the opportunity to make fun of a group that appeared unfashionable and that proposes the ridiculous idea that men aren’t the privileged lot who have it all their way and wish to continue a history of controlling and exploiting women.
Marra made a parody of ‘infiltrating’ the Summit conference. It’s unlikely he ever really believed he would be in any danger but it made a good story to portray the men as if they were like an ISIS cell.
Spinoff portrays itself as a responsible media organisation and states on its web page:
It’s unclear whether being subject to ‘NZ Press Council Procedures’ means they need to keep to the Press Council principles. Nevertheless, Marra appears to have believed that he couldn’t be too blatant about writing fake news for amusement so he pretended to summarize some of the proceedings of the Summit conference. From what I remember of the presentations Marra failed to mention most of the important points and he badly misrepresented some speakers. Although sarcastically dismissing most of what the speakers said he did not offer any reasoned argument or evidence. Instead, he denigrated the speakers; ridiculed or attacked the speakers rather than refuting what they said. He also indulged in a bit of ageism, implying that these representatives of the men’s movement were too old to have anything to offer to solve men’s issues.
At least Marra kind of accepted that there were important problems for men. That’s probably more than what he believed before attending the Summit.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:10 pm
We have learned that a formal complaint has been made to The Spinoff for breaching Press Council principles, specifically:
Principle 1. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view.
Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
Principle 9. Subterfuge
Information or news obtained by subterfuge, misrepresentation or dishonest means is not permitted unless there is an overriding public interest and the news or information cannot be obtained by any other means.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 9:09 am
Marra might end up smiling on the other side of his face.
Presenting “spoof and humour” as real news, is a form of misrepresentation and will mislead some people.
So, best wishes with the complaints process.
But commercial media are encroaching advertising into content very often. This is being done on a far larger scale than Marra’s humour.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 5:59 pm
Theres more ranting from one who read Marra’s claims:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/05-05-2017/dear-masculinists-the-feminist-movement-isnt-about-you-its-about-us/
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 7:46 pm
Voices @53. Feminist hollow slogans, poorly informed and lacking thought.
The claim that feminists don’t want to remove men’s rights is ridiculous when one considers the right-removal involved in protection orders many of which are without notice (talk about rights!) and many of which are based on misrepresentation or falsehood; the serious reduction of property ownership rights that are magically turned into ‘relationship property’ just because a partner used it during the relationship; the removal of the right to have male-only spaces and activities while women-only groups abound; the progressive reduction in the right to defend oneself against false sexual allegations; the erosion of any right to fair and equal treatment; and current feminist demands that women should be able to murder men with impunity in situations that don’t involve immediate self-defence.
She trots out the irrational argument that a low conviction rate for sexual allegations means that false allegations must be rare. There is little relationship between these two issues. No matter what proportion of sexual allegations end up in conviction, being convicted on the basis of false allegations is terrible abuse. Making it easier to convict men on the basis of the same unsupported allegations will result in comparable increases in conviction for both truly guilty as for truly innocent men. Why don’t people think with a tiny bit of depth and integrity about these issues?
She bemoans the fact that some men dare to criticize femaleism and she suggests that men should focus on dealing with their issues and leave women to do the same. Unfortunately, the ways femaleists have been dealing with their issues have been without care or decency towards men and have created many of the issues now damaging men. And it’s not as though feminist activities, conferences etc have limited their focus on solving female issues; they spend much of their time blaming and denigrating men. And when men do try to address their issues through such gatherings as the Men’s Summit or conferences around the world, look at what happens! Femaleists use violence and sabotage to remove the right of men’s free speech, demanding ‘safe space’ censorship of anything said by anyone that femaleists might not agree with. Or, as they have done with the Men’s Summit, femaleists mount unethical attacks, misrepresenting what the men say then denigrating those misrepresentations.
This feminist writer is attempting to convince men that feminist activities haven’t harmed men and don’t represent a threat to men, and indeed that feminism is good for men too! Yeah right, let’s all believe this and remain silent as our rights keep getting removed, our welfare keeps being eroded and we are increasingly consigned to a lower class of male citizens.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 10:39 pm
@54
We’ve been there – ask the Human Rights Commission for Ben Easton’s complaint, if you want to follow that up, otherwise give up talking about.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 31st May 2017 @ 6:28 am
The first spinoff article- “updated” with a responce from Hans Laven (moma).
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/31-05-2017/among-the-masculinists/
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Wed 31st May 2017 @ 9:03 pm
17 minutes of reasonable explanations from Cassie Jay.
https://youtu.be/3LqbqUMXinQ
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Wed 31st May 2017 @ 9:25 pm
Voices @57: That talk by Cassie Jay is just so apt, so relevant to Marra’s behaviour. Very enlightening.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 1st June 2017 @ 12:06 am
First reports are hitting the media from the international men’s issues conference at the Gold Coast a few days ago.
Cassie Jay’s Red Pill movie has been timely and is now the top download on many major sites.
Much of the Aussie press has done their best to shame her and her movie and this has created a stir. The resulting media against media against media is an absolute ring in the till for sales of her wonderful doco – and awareness of men’s issues.
https://spectator.com.au/2017/06/mens-rights-movement/
Comment by voices back from the bush — Sun 18th June 2017 @ 7:22 pm