Dame Silvia’s Sexism
I submitted the following letter to the NZ Herald.
According to your article on 3 August, Dame Silvia Cartwright in her farewell speech described her hope in New Zealand for “…better health and human rights, especially for women and children”. Why should men also not be accorded better health and the same human rights as women? It is incredible that our society has been so captured by feminist ideology that the nation’s most senior statesperson believes it is acceptable to discriminate openly against men. Her statement is made all the more insensitive by the fact that men already fare much more poorly in health statistics than do women and men die more from most of the leading causes of premature death in developed countries.
Dame Silvia went on to make condescending jokes about her husband who has supported her through her illustrious career. This included a joke about his baldness. Imagine the outcry if a major statesman publicly made jokes about his wife’s sagging breasts or expanded thighs. One might contrast Dame Silvia’s speech with that usually made by a man. You are likely to hear him express heartfelt gratitude and respect for the wife who supported him.
The sweet ex dam lives in the same deluded world as those content on gender bias & manipulation e.g. Helengrad, Cindy man hater, etc…etc…that make up the powerful evil sisterhood regime. She was a ex family court brothel judge much like the new sick joke that is set to replace her.
Comment by Peter Burns — Fri 4th August 2006 @ 7:41 am
Good letter Hans,
Silvia Cartwright is not deserving of her title, nor should be able to retire on the nest egg given to her by the taxpayer until this matter is dealt with.
There should be a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.
I used to think that my Family Court Horrors were becuase of a closed and injust system, but I am slowly realising that it is all part of an evil feminist conspiracy to destroy the family (divide and conquer) in order to have more control of her ‘subjects’.
I read the article “Call for Women’s Refuge Enquiry” last night.
This should be made public along side Sandra Patterson’s “Feminist Agenda Reaches Fruition” and Silvia Cartwright’s speach.
This madness needs to be stopped!
Comment by Wayne — Fri 4th August 2006 @ 8:23 am
Hans,
Yes, I heard her speech also over the radio. But she used the words, “Family violence” which they are using to manipulate us as it really still means men hurting women and children. They think they can cover their agenda up with this and shut the ordinary people up with it but it is going to backfire on them. I know what ‘family violence’ means. It means the women that are bashing thier children and the women who are bashing their men as well as the men that are bahsing thier children and the men that are bashing their women.
I was talking to a female the other day about this violence and how men are throw out of the home and a protection order is placed on them. She asked, “Why do they throw the men out. Isn’t that what women’s refuge is for? So that the women have somewhere to go.” Gee, that makes sense to me.
Wayne,
and
Where did you get that from?
Also, I am sad in a way you see the bigger picture because once you learn this, there is no way back.
Comment by julie — Fri 4th August 2006 @ 10:22 am
When the state can flaunt it bias so openly, and no outcry follows, we must see that playing at the fringes is NO answer! The answer to the moderates is, “What will push you over the edge?” For I fear that when the time comes and the moderates do go over the edge, on mass, they will have built up such anger that it will go too far in the other extreme( flying past us radicals of today by a wide margin).
This moderation, & endless dead end action, is done in the form of endless rationalized court appeals(hoping this time the state will magically turn around to give men the warm hug appeal we haven’t recieved from cold daddy judge ever). This longing to keep hammering at judgey for some warm loving ruling is very strange (I’ll let the amateur shrinks go at any hidden modivations here). This comes from the same people sometimes that lecture us about the problems with the traditional fathers cold ways, but doesn’t stop them from seeing they are again following they same desire for acceptance from now an insitution that doesn’t care & will never care for it is a cold bureaucracy and not some caring warm fuzz mother figure.
I’m a more traditional male supporter, yet simply see this as a serious game that one must simply step off of, and not long for something that won’t be given to you on their playing field, by their rules, with their referees and by their created game. The judicary are the new oligarchy for heaven sake!!
Yet, for me I’m more concerned with the inevitable backlash from all the men hiding their justified anger.
Very soon I’ll put up a new article that again shoots down, once again, this flipping between positions, that the establishment does on command, that moderates try to span as their legs get spread wider and wider over the deformed gulf in the desire to seem nice to those in power(who put you in this position trying to prove you aren’t
. The Establishment seem 2 steps ahead of moderates in action, and 10 steps ahead of them in psyching you out in the head. An issue is at least 50 % mental.
Comment by Intrepid — Fri 4th August 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Hans,
Great letter brother.
Absolutely on the mark mate.
Well done.
How about that submission to the Human Right’s Commission? (not that I’d expect such a PC body to actaually do anything, but at least it would be on record for future reference to thier passive misandry).
Intrepid,
Yes, I too fear what will happen when a sizable number of men coalesce thier anger at a misandric system with figureheads like her.
It’s yet another disgraceful and very spooky example of blatant disregard for nz’s menfolk and victim feminism.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 4th August 2006 @ 1:21 pm