Not a week goes by without numerous examples of institutional sexism against men, misandrist beliefs expressed and/or demonstrated by powerful people and journalists, or chivalry and special treatment towards women. So what’s the problem? Should we complain? Some feminists, like Cate J who recently visited us with trickery and lies, genuinely believe that men have nothing to complain about because they are privileged compared to women. Other feminists acknowledge some unfairness but excuse this on the basis that “it’s men’s turn now to be disadvantaged”. Most feminists prefer to live in blissful denial of the social reality, believing that everything’s going in a good direction now that women’s wisdom is influential.

In my opinion equal opportunity and rights, equal treatment under the law and equal standards of interpersonal care are desirable aims. They were the demands of feminists in the past. They were the basis on which men agreed to massive social change. But now it seems those aims were fraudulent. Feminists now show zilch interest in addressing inequality when it advantages women. They ignore, ridicule, attack and/or destroy men who draw attention to gender inequalities. They screech for greater violence against men for behaving contrary to their preference, and laugh at the suffering of men damaged by the current regime.

So here’s a sample of this week’s evidence. It’s not much different from the evidence any other week, if only I could allow myself the time each week to expose it all from the perspective of aware men.

These two women, criminals Lani Aperahama and Kaycee Wall, acted together to take revenge on a man for carrying on sexual relationships with both without telling them. Their crimes against him included various forms of harassment as well as violently wrecking possessions in his house (intentional damage carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment) and blackmail (carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment). Ah yes, but these offenders were female so they received 350 hours community work. For good measure, the judge indulged in hefty victim bashing with comments such as

‘Any long-term harm will occur from the complainant’s conduct, which was morally reprehensible’

and

‘I do not consider the harm to the complainant or to his family from this offending will be long term’.

The judge took into account a psychologist’s report that stated one of the offenders ‘might have’ been affected by an ‘acute stress disorder’. Talk about excuses. The judge gave both women the same sentence, so perhaps he believed the “possibility of an acute stress disorder” was a contagious phenomenom.

Just imagine if two men had gone into a cheating woman’s house and trashed it, then conspired to extort money from her through blackmail! The judge would have used the term ‘victim’ instead of ‘complainant’ in referring to the woman. The fact that the offenders worked together would have been seen as hugely aggravating making the offending tantamount to terrorism. The woman’s cheating would have been seen as pretty well irrelevant. In fact, our law strongly protects the right of women to cheat sexually and punishes men with protection orders or worse for so much as criticizing a woman for unfaithfulness. Feminists object to any notion that provocation might be seen to reduce a man’s responsibility for losing self-control, but where are their concerns when two women are almost excused for their violence essentially on the basis of provocation?

In this case the judge’s attitude appeared to be an effective male-bashing role model. Offender Kaycee Wall after sentencing boasted on Facebook that at least she would get her property back but the victim wouldn’t (presumably because she had destroyed it and wasn’t ordered to pay any reparation). Was this the ‘remorse’ that the judge referred to as shown by both women? Journalist Bevan Hurley felt entitled to make light of the offending with a headline about ‘Shoe-nuking Lani’ and describing a stunt headed ‘Nuclear Science’ to see what happens to shoes in a microwave oven (totally ignoring the many other acts of damage carried out by the offenders). Ho ho ho, what a laugh. He also gave a platform for the mother of offender Aperahama to demean the victim. The mother, also seemingly emboldened by the judge’s lead, claimed her daughter had been ‘harshly treated’, complained that the victim ‘got off scot-free’ (What?! Did he commit criminal offences?), and ranted publicly that she would violently physically attack him if she saw him. Ah yes, a woman’s caring and empathy for a male victim of violence is something to behold. Yes, Human Rights Commission, carry on your taxpayer-funded White Ribbon Campaign encouraging us to show we’re against violence towards women (but not men).

At least Aperahama and Wall were convicted. This woman, Margaret Russell, was acquitted of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm against her ex-partner. The jury must have believed that the complainant made up his account that she broke a jar and stabbed at his face five times with the jagged remains. The jury must also have disbelieved the four people she had earlier told that she wanted to kill the complainant. Instead, the jury must have believed her claim that she broke the jar above the complainant’s head simply to attract his attention and that the first of the two serious wounds on his arms was accidental because he was silly enough to flail his arms around when she broke the jar and the second was from him walking past her and cutting his own arm on the broken jar she was still holding. Yeah right. You can work out for yourself how the jury would have voted if the gender roles had been reversed. And it’s unlikely that journalist Lyn Humphreys would have made light of the violence with a headline about a ‘lolly jar’. How much more of this female favouritism are we to endure? I have no doubt that this male victim of female violence told the truth, and in addition was decent enough not to apply for a protection order to force the woman out of the house, and decent enough to transport the woman to and from the Courthouse.

And what about this one?! A female preschool teacher smacked her young ‘pupils’, pulled their hair and put them in a cupboard for up to half an hour. Yet police decided not to prosecute because of ‘the difficulty of getting evidence from children and the trauma it would put them through’. What? Tell that to Peter Ellis! Oh right, I forgot, he’s a male so that makes it easy to get evidence from children (especially when suggested to them beforehand) and makes it not traumatic for them. We are not allowed to know the name of this allegedly abusive female teacher or the preschool she worked at because the Employment Relations Authority has ordered this. Presumably because the police would not prosecute and the woman had some connection with the school board, the woman received $12000 ‘grievance settlement’, a positive reference and an agreement that her name and alleged behaviour would be kept secret. Although the Ministry of Education threatened to shut the preschool down unless it got rid of the teacher, that same Ministry now will allow her to apply for jobs elsewhere without mentioning her past. CYFS seem happy to sit on their hands too. What planet are we on again? Just imagine if this teacher had been a man! Numerous journalists and feminist groups would be up in arms creating a public controversy about it. Brave bloggers would find out and expose the identity of this violent male with strong public support behind them. CYFS would be working their ‘trained evidential interviewer’ social workers overtime to get dirt from the children that can be used to pressure police to prosecute. Ah, but this teacher is female, and for females we have the Pussy Pass.

Then there’s this little expose by journalist David Fisher. A sole mother had her three children removed from her care because they were starving, had nits, lice, skin lesions, infections and wounds that had not been attended to. One child described eating cockroaches to stay alive. However, not a word of blame was placed by David Fisher on the mother. After all, she’s a female and we must never find fault with them. Instead, these children’s appalling state was claimed to be a stark example of poverty in NZ and the mean WINZ people insisting that parents receive budgeting advice before being given emergency grants. For me, this article was a stark example of the Pussy Pass embedded in our nation’s psyche. The article did provide an interesting costing though. Apparently, it costs about $30,000 per year to provide care for a child who has been removed from poor family situations. Presumably that will include the cost of accommodation. It follows that $30,000 minus the accommodation component, divided in half should be the maximum any father can be expected to pay in child support. The father should not pay for the mother’s accommodation because he equally has to provide accommodation suitable for the children to stay at his home.

What about this story about enslaved, exploited, abused and killed seamen on foreign fishing boats charted by NZ companies and iwi who hold quota? At least the journalist Michael Field used the terms ‘men’ and ‘fishermen’, but the significance of the story for gender issues and the plight of men was not mentioned or explored. NZ agencies’ lack of concern about these atrocities was blamed on the fishermen’s foreign race, but I would bet that if the workers were women or even included a few women, NZ government agencies would be on their case without delay. Some of those agencies are highly active in combating sex trafficking of women and children, but seem to turn a blind eye to what is overwhelmingly the most frequent people trafficking and exploitation: men for their labour.

Or this story that actually had a better outcome thanks to the Employment Court? A pilot had been dismissed by Air Nelson (owned by Air NZ) for serious misconduct after having sex with a hostess when their flight was delayed overnight. The story appears to be an example of a woman agreeing to, indeed requesting and initiating sex that she later regretted, then running to the police alleging rape. In this case the police found no evidence of any offence but the woman cried sexual harassment to the employer who jumped to her support, decided she had been sexually harassed and sacked the pilot on what finally transpired to be false grounds. The Employment Relations Authority rode in as white knights to rescue this woman too, but finally the Employment Court was brave enough to show fairness to this man. The crime here was that our feminist-soaked attitudes and feminist-poluted employment policies enabled this man to be persecuted in the first place, then over such a long period of time. I guess we can’t expect much else from an airline that won’t allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men.

And what about Marama Davidson, an employee at our Human Rights Commission (HRC)? (Yes, that’s right, the Commission that spends megabucks of our money on the sexist White Ribbon Campaign that through omission condones violence towards men). While at work she made various highly derogatory comments that amounted to hate speech against a male Ngapuhi activist David Rankin, including saying she wanted to boil his head. Mr Rankin complained to the HRC which doesn’t appear to have accepted responsibility for Davidson’s actions exactly but simply stated that it had taken ‘appropriate disciplinary action’ and refused to comment further. Mr Rankin later claimed that if the offender had been Pakeha ‘they wouldn’t have been at work on Monday’. Sorry David, I doubt that. Whether she had been Maori or Pakeha wouldn’t have made too much difference. But if the employee had a penis, then you can be sure he would have been publicly disgraced and sacked.

There is so much more news but so little time to write about it. If these few don’t get your heads shaking in disbelief and your hearts feeling for the victimized men, the NZ government might want to hire you.