The Walking Penis…

A rant on the gendered war, ‘friends’, ‘family’ and moving forward:

The lessons for me from the last few years is that friendship and even personal relationship with relatives is a conditional and fickle thing so at this age I give less of fuck towards maintaining links with such.
It is sad that the majority of us are self-centered humans seemingly incapable of observing and learning from the fuck ups of the generation prior…we/you move forward with an arrogance of knowing what is best and my journey going forward should be to relax and leave you to the fuckups coming your way.

However it is impossible to stay clear of current gendered bullshit without severely curtailing normal life. To take one feminist ‘thought’ on objectification. Men as an abstract mass are seen as a walking erection looking for any innocence hole to impose upon and just for kicks this erection will when flaccid give the bash to women and children just ’cause we feel like it.

This ‘all men are rapists’ ‘thinking’ of the last 30 to 40 years is at the root of the gendered fear campaign conducted by radical feminist ideology. It is ideology broadcast near and far by the marketplace because it suits the aspirations of the marketplace.  After 50 years feminist ‘thinking’ is what has served to ‘inform’ all manner of socio-political legislation and regulations in the arena of safety, protection, ‘family’ divorce legislation alongside general ‘justice’. It is epitomized by the specter of a piece of vermin running the NZ Labour party (main left wing party) before the last election apologizing for being a man.

‘Vermin’ may be harsh but that is one interpretation of the left abandoning its roots in the class struggle for men alongside women and selling out to feminist clap trap because it sees this as the path to gain power through the women’s vote. The really sad thing for ordinary people is that there is no real power for either the left or the right now in the face of a globalised marketplace co-ordinated by a very powerful and increasingly moneyed elite (80 billionaires now have more wealth than half the population of the world). All parties support the current marketplace which has the primary function of profit, for owners and shareholders, at whatever cost to the masses and the environment.

A few days ago I received endorsement on my ‘stopthegenderwarnz’ facebook page for my letter ‘to my Aussie niece’ (who posted a poster on men rape 1in6 women and then we misname the sharks as predators) from the world respected Erin Pizzy, the founder of domestic violence refuges. This ego ‘boost’ from someone with a life-time of ‘front-line’ involvement in domestic violence and with the extremes of feminist politics in this arena enables me to know I am on the right path. However the lack of any positive support from real life friends and family on my personal fb page flattens that enthusiasm for the task on-going but worse the silence actually disgusts me.

I had a friend who was proud of her university attending daughter who was in her words a radical feminist which given the daughter’s middle eastern heritage may have had merits when focusing solely on her origins. Her late teen son was between Mcjobs and had no idea what he wanted to do. I stated I believe there to be no merit for feminist agitation in the western world anymore and that worse it is a divide and rule agency for promotion of the globalised consumerist marketplace. Dysfunction and failure sells greater product than does stability. (Let’s stop being stupid on this matter…war is the greatest money making venture ever known to the banksters like Rothschilds and manufacturers like Rockefellers etc…social dysfunction in a ‘peaceful’ western country is just a minor more palatable version of such). She saw no problem with her son or that he was part of the neglect our society has extended towards males in general and most certainly towards our sons in terms of education and thus a stake in society. Her self-centred ‘head in the sand’ myopic focus on life is exactly what the puppetmasters want. Our society is what it is and what it will become because the majority is exactly of her ilk.

I am sure there were many proud German parents that watched their children go off to involve themselves in Hitler youth projects or their older teens joining the brown shirts. Segregating and vilifying people according to clearly defined criteria worked well for the ideology fronted by Hitler/Himmler and the feminists as promoted by the marketplace learnt those lessons well.

I guess we as a society get exactly what we directly support which includes the many who seek to shut down dissenters. The deterioration of society is also down to those who fail to speak up and who fail to take any action against what is objected to. Changes for the worse may happen anyway whether action is taken but in speaking up or doing stuff against those changes means you know you did what you could to maintain a decent society.

For myself I see clearly the erosion of healthy interaction between the sexes and in recent years I have seen that this is deliberate and part of a multi-pronged attack aimed at keeping us divided and thus much more easily ruled.
I only have to view my life and the snippets of relatives lives to have a clear understanding that domestic violence is a human issue and not the ‘bad male-innocence female’ scenario feminist ideology has foisted upon society as the ‘truth’. Back at the grass roots of this gender war and why I am feeling low and ready to give up on my so-called family and friends. I believe there to be at least two male and a female relatives that have suffered physical abuse from a female partner/wife or mother. Conversely I have been in relationship with two women who were abused as children and then later raped as a teen or adult. To make one situation more pertinent to my objections to feminist ideology is that the worst damage done was a rape by a woman.

What we have in our society are some mentally/emotionally dysfunctional people, male and female, doing terrible things to other vulnerable people and at the same time almost certainly to have suffered abuse themselves as kids. I myself was assaulted by my ex-wife on three occasions and falsely accused of sexually molesting one of my daughter (an idea she got from a neighbour’s real situation) which she used to booster her claims during the bitter child custody proceedings which ranged across 1992 to 1996 where her severe mental illness was totally ignored by the system. I also went onto emotionally abuse a partner in reaction to her emotional and material theft when she ended things and was again put through the ‘family’ court/ ‘legal’ system in the late 1990’s which heard or accepted not one word from me and then to put the boot in finalised the material theft of what property I had left after my marriage.

Years ago I was also questioned once in a vague way by a sister on behalf of some friends who were concerned about something their five year old daughter had said about her school day…I had driven passed the school and beeped my car horn in recognition. A few years back I was assaulted and threatened with bodily harm by a 30 some female flatmate, she was 5’ high and I had absolute clarity on how things would ‘go’ for me if I dared to defend myself. My ‘fear’ of her was so severe that I got my ex-partner and son to help me shift out within two days. The police refused to do anything about the threats to get her friends to beat me up and the subsequent financial penalty awarded against her in the dispute court was never received or reinforced by the system. Three years ago I was taken aside by the Hamilton police at a music concert where everyone was taking photographs of the acts performing and my camera searched for ‘inappropriate’ images. My crime was clearly being a middle aged male in a majority young age crowd. Because the social image of mid/old aged males now is that of being perverts with uncontrollable dicks. In more recent times a three sentence terse conversation to a woman at work who had created a chaotic unworkable situation in the arena of my responsibility got turned into my being abusive and then used as one reason to fire me. Bullying that I endured for several months when trying to ensure my job was done as described in my position description and said bullying detailed in writing to management was ignored…why because I was male and could ‘take it’? Because women are more important than men in our society…where is the power us males are meant to have or indeed the equality claimed is a obscene myth?

I do not believe my life has been that different from the experiences of many men and especially men who have been shut out of being a day to day father to their kids. However it makes me fucking angry that this is the routine world ‘we’ have allowed to develop around us. What happened to trust, to respect?

My reaction is itself ‘sick’, I now make very sure I am never around children alone despite having raised 6 kids through the nappy age, at least, and I am always wary about close contact with women I perceive as hostile.
Recently I had a sibling that decided not just to disagree, which is fine, on another topic but to cast aspirations about my character and intellect…with instead of arguing the points calling me out as a conspiracy nutter complete with eyes rolled…ignored was the fact that as a result of my maulings in the ‘family’ court which lasted from 1992 to 1998 I formally studied society for 4 years at uni in the early 2000’s and have devoted many hundreds if not thousands of hours to research to all manner of subjects connected to society in the 15-20 odd years since waking up to this gender war…shaming and putdowns make you part of the active element actually supporting the current direction of this society and in that I am ashamed for our dad’s political legacy in this arena. His was another life wasted in the face of what society has become.

It saddens me that each generation seems unable to learn from the previous and that people seem unable to grasp the idea that based purely on stats at least 50% of you men of the younger age groups are going to experience some version of my trauma wanting to remain in your kids lives. Or that as paternal grandparents your right to see those grandkids is purely on the goodwill of the mother.

In terms of the natural order men are biologically programmed to one way or another spread his seed as far as possible. Just like the bull amongst the cows it is not in his interest to cooperate with and help any other male. However we do not live in the paddock or cave anymore and what we as men deal with every day is the consequence of socialisation according to an ideology which at this point in our history is actually harmful to our health as men and as humans in relationship between the sexes.

The state at the behest of the marketplace and aided and fully abetted by radical feminist ideology seeks to replace fathers amongst our families and in the community. We live in the period of social engineering where ‘daddy state’ replaces you and you become merely a sperm donor and the walking wallet to fund such and at any point you are part of the disposable sex.

At some level and to varying degrees I am disgusted with many men in my extended family, amongst my steadily decreasing real life friends and in the general population.

Why are you silent in the face of open season routine denigration of men in general, with a specialised focus on white men? This sexism ranges from the routine ‘funny’ from a woman stating ‘he never grows up’ (to what standards, hers?) or that she has 3 kids at home including the husband and right on up to the male hate, obscene ‘all men are rapists’ repeated in various guises for the last 40 years including the offending poster posted on facebook by a niece, where men rape 1in6 women and thus the title of predator is incorrectly applied to sharks in Australian waters.   When the fuck do you thick shits wake up? This poster and its ilk are about you as you are seen by those who do not know you (and of course some that do). It is not some fun political movement it is an ideology that destroys lives.

To the family men out there where is your voice on behalf of your son who grows up in this disrespected environment? What do you believe his response should be to being marked down at school in the feminised environment, to being dismissed or chastised because he is male and seeks to be more robust in his play? Where is your voice on behalf of your daughters that will seek to associate with this socially disrespected male or that seeks to enjoy life in this artificially hyped up environment of distrust and fear? Worse though is that this climate of disrespect will actually contribute to an increase in gendered violence and again this is by design. Want to actually protect your daughter well speak up on behalf of our sons too and create a healthy society.

Is the ‘silence’ because ‘her at home’ might disapprove of your thinking or voice…might you get an ‘ear full’, get the cold shoulder or miss out on a fuck tonight? Or is it simply that you want to maintain the possibility of sex with women, unknown, so you don’t rock the gender boat and fuck the brothers that don’t make it…less competition for you ah!

Worse are you so mistrusting of your own sex that you actually agree with whatever outlandish claim radical feminism makes? Christ we all know Jimmy Saville is just the tip of the sex predator ice burg and we have a penis that is simply uncontrollable…right?

Well fucking wrong, why do you and why does society fail to recognise that the good deeds of men to our society outweighs the ill of the few. Recently it was a mother in Aussie that killed her 8 kids or the woman a couple of years ago (also Aussie) that killed, skinned and feed her partner to his kids…where was the feminist call for work to be done in the arena of women as perpetrators?

As regards the good of men, my partner recently observed that the vast majority of humans doing physical rescue of animals (and for that matter other humans) are men.
Men on average when it comes to the potential of gaining or maintaining access to sex are entirely self-serving. There is no united front for us bro’s. Few of us take any notice of the plight of another man…screwed over by an anti-male divorce court bizarrely called the family court with little or no access to his kids…must be somehow his fault, maybe he was abusive to them…maybe he did molest that daughter…fuck him anyway until it your time to get screwed over and then maybe the penny drops as to where the power has gone that you have constantly been lied to as being yours. Fifty percent of you who marry and have kids will get to experience some version of this social dysfunction by design of the marketplace.

In the street or home in those moments of relationship heat…it’s his fault…he’s obviously done something bad to incur female reaction/argument. Worse though in this era of extreme social manipulation along gender lines is the myth that beta males will get more sex by openly siding with feminism (actual article subject in Time) by being a male feminist (manginia) and ascribing to this social movement pushing not equality but female supremacy. Or actually insulting to thinking women those men seeking to stop women from being self-actualised responsible adults when they rush forward to ‘rescue’ her…to act as the ‘white knight’ for her with other males.

All this is point scoring or trying to curry favour…it does not make you a man…it is a ‘fuck you’ to your son, your brother or your mate way of conducting life in the 21st century where social conditioning is at war with nature and in this we live with gendered conflict in a divided and ruled society.

WTFU, to criticise the most powerful social movement of the last 50 years is not to criticise women it is to criticise an ideology that is doing all sorts of social harm that needs to be at least discussed openly in the public arena. Shutting down conversation with deletion from internet sites, from your facebook page-as my niece did- or by throwing around the bullshit shaming tactic to men that they are misogynistic or that they are too aggressive or too loud will not help achieve understanding or tolerance for our differences and difficulties.

Feeding the gender war and hyping up ‘normal’ relationship dysfunction serves the masters well…they will be proud of the work done by all the sheeple in their stupid dumb silence and the active work done by all the ‘useful idiots’ thinking there really is a sisterhood that makes everything better!

Posted in Capitalism, Domestic Violence, Feminism-radical/gender, Feminist myths, Financial elite 'Empire'/New World Order, Gender wars/gender conflict/angst, male hate/denigration, Misandry, Neo-liberal/globalisation/'free' market, New Zealand society, NZ politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why divorce and domestic abuse are good for New Zealand’s economy!

If a particular problem persisted that was apparently bad for society. Then logic suggests attention given to that problem would eventually be about actually resolving that problem. We have had the cant and rant of feminism on domestic violence and abuse for the last 40 odd years. In the same period we have experienced an open and sustained attack on the strength of nuclear and blood extended family from this ideology.

The ideologically driven social messages alongside feminist ‘foot soldiers’ have infiltrated both political wings (especially the left) and all manner of social policy to the stage of becoming social orthodoxy in our society.

The why in not actually ever resolving various social problems is contained in who benefits from the continuation of social problems? Since the early 1980’s New Zealand has shifted from a state directed capitalist marketplace to a neo liberal marketplace in common with the western world. The protection of workers and their families has gone and become that of units of labour efficiencies with the drive towards maximising stock holder profit. Many jobs in manufacturing and the trades (a mainstay of average education male employment) have been lost off shore to cheaper labour sites like China.

For feminism advancing the cause of female supremacy and most especially as defined in the labour market, there is absolutely no incentive to reduce male/female relationship conflict. In maintaining this conflict there is routine dismissal and the ignoring of current more humanist research on many issues. Logical and rational debate is quickly shut down with an array of illogical argument bolstered by shaming language that serves to move anti-feminist debate quickly to that being deemed anti-women.

Feminism was simply an agency for neo liberal marketplace change NZ. The agenda of neo liberal reform of the marketplace had nothing to do with social reform or betterment of humans. It only function is to have more people doing more work (but often paid less to ensure unit price reduction), paying more taxes and consuming more products. It is plain to see, by even the only vaguely interested observer of economics that male/female relationships coming and going benefits consumption. The two parent three child home potentially becomes two single parent plus kids two homes. With lawyers, real estate agents, social workers, psychologists, medical professionals, police and all manner of manufacturers and retailers of consumer goods (new bed, tv, fridge, etc etc) being involved in the process.

Academic education has become the nirvana for workers and the emphasis of education has been focused towards the female. By such mechanisms as changing the way subjects are taught and accessed by an increasing disproportion of female teachers.

At the same time ordinary wage rates relative to those needed to support an average family home reduced to the point where two parents’ are required to be in the labour force to support what one parent could prior to 1980’s marketplace change. This no doubt adds psychological pressure to two working parent homes, the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) in 1972 became an attractive mechanism that has clearly contributed to family breakdown decisions by far more couples than the bad marriages it promoted to ‘help’ end. Workers at the bottom end of the work market have little financial advantage (if any) over what the DPB offers. The ‘i’m bored’ is easily catered for as 75% of marriages are ended by women.

In 2010 NZ had the third highest number of lawyers to head of population. Women as lawyers have risen from 21% of total in 1990 to 45% in 2013. The majority of new admissions to legal practise have been women since 2000 with the percentage around 60% each year. Lawyers currently practising by admission year 2012 is a 60% female to 40% male. 17% of MP’s are lawyers. Barristers as percentage of lawyers rose from 4.5% in 1990 to 14.2% in 2010 with a slight drop back following changes in the amount of legal aid funds ‘floating about’ and an additional course requirement called ‘stepping up’. 31% of lawyers work in family laws some of the time. Some percentage of other legal work would relate to marriage/relationship formation and break-up. These being 42% of lawyers working some of the time in property, 37% in civil litigation, 36% in trusts and estates and 21% in criminal. (1)

We have a youth dysfunction statistic, the highest rate of teen suicide in world. We have as a criminal indicator the 4th highest rate of incarceration in world behind US, Mexico and Poland. We have as a family dysfunction stat, 24% of families in NZ are single parent (similar to US and UK while Germany has 14%), 40% plus for Maori.
In the ten years between 1986 and 1996 children in sole parent homes rose 57% to 190,000. “…the number of sole-parent families has grown rapidly over recent years. This has important implications for the welfare of children, given that sole parents tend to be disadvantaged in terms of employment, income, education and housing when compared to partnered parents.” 68% of these sole parent homes had previously been in marriages or defacto relationships. In the six years between 1990 and 1996 sole parent families in the bottom 20% of all household incomes went from 50% to 56%. (2)

By the 2000’s shared care was usually considered best for the children, yet in 2009 80% of child support payers were fathers. The traditionalist man as ‘beast of burden’ continues but for the state as the new alpha male to a growing number of women. The 2006 census showed that 18% of families were one-parent families with children (this does not account for newly blended family arrangements).

A 1998 study of children whose parents had separated found that 52% of adolescents sampled had seen their father in the last year. This means a staggering 48% of children have not seen their father in the last year. A 2004 study found that one in 10 children born after 1970 had lived in a blended family by the age of five, compared with one in 20 children born before 1970. Just under 40% of children (I would add that this is probably of all children) spent some time living with their mother only before they turned 17. A 1995 study showed that up to two-thirds of mothers who separated found a new partner within five years. In 1986, for couples with a child under five, 59% of mothers and 0.9% of fathers were at home full time and not in paid work. By 2001 it had changed to 38% of mothers and 3.4% of fathers. (3) The most likely place for child sexual abuse is in the solo-mother household where there is exposure to unrelated adults (7).

In Scotland “…there were 5,235 whole time equivalent (WTE) qualified social workers in 2009 compared to 5,072 the previous year, an increase of 3.2 per cent…Overall, the number of social workers is now 35 per cent higher than a decade ago. (4) A social worker study in the US indicated four out of five social workers were female and that this percentage was increasing (5)
It is costing the state more money to train a greater number of doctors because a greater number of graduates (more of them are female) are choosing to work less hours over their career than the norm of the past with a higher percentage of male graduates. Doctors derive more work from social dysfunction than in a situation of social harmony. With the percentage of population likely to need medical intervention increasing with disadvantaged households and further that these households will on average account for more police and legal profession hours.

It is in government that social policy evolves and in NZ women make up 59% of state sector employees, 52% of school boards, 44% of health boards while being 46% of the work force.(6) According to US voting trends women are more likely to vote for leftish social policy parties versus men for conservative economic based parties. Interestingly the actual split of gender of voters in NZ is not readily available. My suspicion is that more women vote which would account for the lack of voice given to men’s issues.

Clearly social dysfunction is good for business and good for workers in those fields. There is self interest at play to not resolving our so called social ills. As for the argument of relationship dysfunction being good for the consumerist economy. I am personally reminded of this every time I buy the third or fourth copy of a music cd and this years $30 op shop mattress to replace the two $1500 mattresses bought in the last 15 years!

I have used NZ stats where I have found something related or other western country stats where they seem applicable. There has been thinking amongst MRA’s for some years that gender stats that do not support some feminist argument are simply not collected.
1. http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/64011/Snapshot-2013-Web.pdf
2. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/children/nzs-children.aspx 1999
3. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/parenting/page-3
4. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/06/30111638
5. http://workforce.socialworkers.org/studies/fullStudy0806.pdf
6. http://www.neon.org.nz/documents/HR%20Women_screen.pdf (2008)
7. http://m.theage.com.au/comment/mums-boyfriend–the-worst-sexual-risk-to-children-20140213-32n3s.html

Posted in Capitalism, Domestic Violence, Gender wars/gender conflict/angst, Neo-liberal/globalisation/'free' market, New Zealand society, NZ politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Interpretation of neo liberal marketplace, feminism, NZ politics.

Interpretation of neo liberal marketplace, feminism, NZ politics.

The difference your vote makes??

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Getting Real About Domestic Violence and Abuse in NZ

WTFU people, feminism and white ribbon are the problem not the solution.

Feminism was certainly the agent for putting domestic abuse and violence into the public arena.  However its ideological position on domestic violence and other aspects of social life is now the problem preventing New Zealand society moving forward with any effective solutions.  The ‘abuse industry’ with its gender ideologically based  ‘research’, ‘patch’ protection, job protection and straight out political lies are currently allowed more import than solving real harm being done to real people in our society.

New Zealand as a society needs to face up to what is the real extent of violence and what are the forms of violence done to whomever by whomever?  It is not possible to derive any viable solutions based upon half-truths.  Getting real about the violence, and perhaps reducing the scope of what matters, should involve repeal or amendment to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and to stop all public funding towards feminist inspired, gendered based organisations like White Ribbon Campaign.

Feminist theory on what is domestic violence drove the provisions of the DVA 1995 to recognise psychological and emotional abuse.  Increasingly this wide interpretation of abuse has been applied to both sexes in domestic violence research, that is women and men have been recognised as both victims and perpetrators.  From this humanist approach of reality research on domestic abuse, emerges papers from such as the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS), a longitudinal study of the health and development of 1037 children born in Dunedin between April 1972 and March 1973.

As reported in NZ Herald 2006 (1) Professor David Fergusson an author of a domestic violence paper arising from DMHDS found that most situations where violence did occur in couple relationships had input from both sexes.  That is men and women are both victims and perpetrators in domestic violence.  As a result of these finding, and presumably as an academic concerned with facts and wanting to produce solutions, Dr Fergusson wrote to the Children’s Commissioner objecting to the commissioner, Paul Curry, making a statement that ‘almost all family violence is carried out by men on women and children’.  The statement arose as a Commission response to White Ribbon Day.

The orthodoxy, and the blatant disregard for quality abuse research, is well  evident when the same Commission supports the same campaign in Nov 2013, 7 years later.  With an open letter to men about ‘their behaviours’.  The Children’s Commission appears to more interested in maintaining it ideological connections with feminism than in helping the children it is charged with protecting.  If one half of the population does not receive a message to stop their abuse then abuse will continue to feature between such plagued couples and their children will carry on bearing witness to violence in the home.  Being ‘trained’ for their roles in later adulthood.

However it is evident that the DMHDS papers have infiltrated some circles, given the current trickle of feminist ‘academic’s now seeking to move the abuse ‘goal posts’ to a position of  ‘we only mean real violence’.  However there is not the integrity of following through to call for changes to the DVA act. 

We who are actually concerned with abuse and working to reduce its presence in our society call NZ feminists ‘out’ on their shifting sand argument and lack of integrity with follow up to their assertions. In the 2010 Rethinking women and Politics New Zealand and Comparative Perspectives Prue Hyman’s (2)(3) chapter ‘Feminist Agendas and Action in 21st Century: Violence Against Women’

“…there has been considerable media attention to research claiming to show equal incidence of violence {or more accurately, domestic conflict} by gender within partner relationships. Professor David Fergusson, director of the Christchurch Child Development study, a valuable longitudinal of a cohort born around 1980, published material on this in 2005. He reported that ‘domestic conflict’ occurred in 70% of relationships and that women and men showed similar levels of perpetration and victimisation through domestic violence (Fergusson, Horwood and Riddles 2005). He generated  further publicity in November 2006, expressing discontent at the focus of White Ribbon Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  For example, Simon Collins (New Zealand Herald 13 November 2006) gave major coverage to his interpretations and attacks on the Families Commission for focusing on male violence.”

This emotive “…considerable media attention…major coverage…”  and exaggerated language on the impact of this study is simply not borne out by any casual look at mainstream media coverage of domestic violence or listening to any casual social conversations on domestic violence in NZ.  As evident that even in November 2013, the Children’s Commission continues its on-going attachment to the loudest public voice of White Ribbon Campaign of 2013.  It campaign  focus on women with the ‘tact-on’ of children, given readily available real research, is in effect of the message ‘bad male as perpetrator and poor woman as victim’, a male hate/misandrist organisation.  The feminist ideological view remains society’s orthodox view.  Bus stops in urban areas still display huge posters for White Ribbon, the majority of mainstream media paper column writing is on violence against women.

Continuing: “…Feminist psychologist Alison Towns has critiqued Fergusson’s interpretation of the research and the overall limitations of the research…confined to the South Island and aged only about 30 at the time of analysis…”

Efforts to fudge the Otago findings include mention of 1980 as cohort birth date next to 2005 study date (the casual reader would assume age at 24-ish) so as to make them younger people than reality.  Which further dishonestly ignores the fact that the cant and reality fiction figure of  1in4 women as rape victims recited ad nausea by feminism arose out of a university campus ‘study’ in the US in 1985.  The respondents would more than likely have been much younger. Leaving aside the issue of 74% of the respondents judged as raped by the ‘researcher’ Mary Koss for Ms Mag, did not consider themselves as rape victims. By 2005 this cohort were in fact getting towards 32 to 33 years old.  Conflict is known to be at its worst when couples are younger than in surviving partnerships.  However it gets worse.

Continuing: “She argues that the study authors:…they jump from domestic conflict to domestic violence…the mild forms of couple conflict interactions that do not create fear or severe emotional distress…distinctly different from form of violence called domestic violence or battering…in NZ, under the DVA 1995, about 95% of Protection Orders are taken out by women mostly for protection from men…

This erroneous connection of two facets of abuse, those of actual relationship conduct which Hyman claims some as not ‘really’ being domestic abuse put next to an ‘abuse industry’ tool (protection orders) as proof of majority male violence is simply disingenuous writing.  It represents muddled, probably deliberately so, feminist rhetoric. I know without doubt, from personal experience, that protections orders have been granted ex-parte even where there is no history of violence to refer to. They are granted to women on the basis of the low bar threshold that they fear ‘he may be violent’.  These orders are the ‘go to’ tool advised on by lawyers in the ‘abuse industry’ for women to gain the ultimate upper hand in child custody disputes and/or as a means to quickly shut an inconvenient ‘ex’ out, in my case to enable a new romantic pursuit.  A male attempting to get a protection order against a woman would probably need to front up to a defended hearing with the knife still embedded in his stomach. 

Continuing:  “…Most serious assaults recorded by Police are male assaults female, and most male assaults female apprehensions are for domestic violence incidents. (Towns 2006a, p.3)…” The facts are the majority of public assaults are on male victims this follows that the majority of serious assaults would have male as victims.  In the domestic situation, it is well recorded amongst men’s groups the lack of assistance extended to male victims by the Police who have even been known to arrest the male when it has been him that rang the Police.  I know personally, from three separate incidents of assault and a threat to kill that the police will seldom help a male victim.  Further it is also well known that men will seldom seek help for partner abuse because of feelings associated with masculinity, peer derision and the known factor of Police not helping.

I actually agree with the idea that we need to separate what is probably reasonably common conduct within ‘average’ relationships from the conduct that maims individuals and scares the hell out of children growing up.  However this should have involved follow through honesty with Hyman and her ilk advocating getting the DVA 1995 amended.  This should include penalties for false claims to achieve protection orders with all but the worst cases claiming protection, being subject to normal innocent till proven guilty defendable hearings.  Further setting aside nonsense that men hurt and feel less than women so comparative acts of abuse have different outcomes and do not require the same focus.  The suicide stats of men killing themselves at least three times more than women suggest this feminist contention is also without foundation.  Adding to this ‘women more fearful’ scenario, look no further than a 30 to 40 year campaign of fear designed to make women fearful as feminism has demanded the political status of victimhood.  But most importantly a high proof threshold of any claimed violence before any child is denied access to either of their parents.

Turning attention to the dishonesty of White Ribbon campaign (4).  Real scrutiny needs to be brought to bear on the anti-male thrust of this organisation.  The mundane banal association now present in our society between what is bad (eg violence/rape) and being a man or male is harmful to our boys growing up and will, if not already, become a contributing factor to actual violence against society including women amongst the human victims.  At what age do our sons to be protected as children graduate to the status of suspect, to be shamed merely because they are male.  One consequence of shaming is suicide. Given the 4 to 1 incident rate between male and female teens we as a society must take a real look at what scape-goating men as fathers is doing to our sons.

Meantime the White Ribbon campaign continues to focus on the wide definition of domestic violence including emotional abuse, but only if you are a female victim.  As the main media voice ‘expert’ on dv in NZ it carries on its misandrist male hate and denies any reference to the research out of Otago.  Any individual level attempt to have a rational discussion on domestic violence by referring to the Otago study is met with personal attack, deletion of comment and being barred from their Facebook page.  White ribbon is a ‘patch’ protection and ‘abuse industry’ job protector it is not part of the solution to domestic violence.  At the same time our society is full of gutless individuals with access to real information that are more concerned about being ‘attacked’ (that is verbal and physical threats along with career effects in certain social agencies) by feminist ideologues than with actually being part of properly dealing with abuse in society.

Victims are victims whatever their sex and most certainly our society should be questioning why we privilege one victim over another purely based upon their sex.  It would be clearly racist and offensive to decree Pakeha victims are more deserving of help than Maori and yet that is exactly what we allow with female victims versus male victims.

It is also entirely possible that the current focus on women and actively denying men help may actually be creating more women victims. From a NZ Herald article (5) about a father in Dunedin that killed his two children, himself and was no doubt aiming to include his estranged wife.  

From a former friend “he must have been crying out for help, but it wasn’t available or he hadn’t asked the right people.  We’ll just never know.”

Radical feminists and their ilk who seek to deny that males can be victims of abuse, deny that they need help before they ‘snap’ and/or actively seek to block resources for things like non-blaming programmes for male issues and male refuges etc. should take note that by ‘allowing’ and even supporting such facilities, for men, you may very well save the life of a child or woman.

I looked at US spouse murder trends through the years. Husband/boyfriend killing show a reduction through the period since refuges and respite help became more readily available to women. Before the late 1980’s the murder/killer rates for both sexes were similar. This idea of actual reduction in murder rates ignores the issue of jury bias where men as spouse killers are 9 times more likely to be convicted of murder than women.

Given that this avenue has not been extensively highlighted given the millions of words of feminist ‘analysis’, speaks to dishonesty where the actual ‘end game’ is not resolution but to maintain employment in the $billion dollar abuse industry.

Shame on you White Ribbon and your ilk!

1.       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410452

2.       http://vup.victoria.ac.nz/rethinking-women-and-politics-new-zealand-and-comparative-perspectives/ Another ‘call to arms’ to re-envisage the tired agenda of feminism.  Amongst the general dishonesty of this book promoting an ideology was that there was no  connection of feminism to the neo-liberal agenda.  The major economic system and social  influence of our current historic times and something addressed as much as 5 years before by a couple of feminist writers.

3.       https://www.facebook.com/prue.hyman.5

4.       https://www.facebook.com/whiteribbonnz

5.       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11189997

Posted in Domestic Violence, Feminism-radical/gender, Feminist myths, Gender wars/gender conflict/angst, Misandry, male hate/denigration, New Zealand society | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

In the 21st Century Feminism is Selling Lemons to New Zealand Society

Politics dynamically affects the personal; the personal is not the ‘only’ of politics.  Self-absorption is common place when viewing the world.  Education which I thought should over came ignorance of limited view, does not seem to dent this issue.  Self-absorption encompasses absorption of social propaganda one lives through, the issues involved when deemed to be betraying the community (in this instance the ‘sisterhood’) including the experience of vitriol that reigns down on such people (especially women critiquing ‘sisterhood’) who speak out and further social belonging that includes, in this instance of gender comment, the many educated men that in their desire to maintain a relationship with women remain silence and worse actively campaign for the propagandists.  

Firstly, due regards to my friend, if you recognise yourself here.  You provoked me to think harder on gender communications. I thought our Xmas break conversation contained much of what is wrong with current ‘debate’ on gender issues in our NZ society.  The conversation seemed to reflect exactly the feminist refrain of ‘the personal is political’.  The personal while worth examining is merely a start point to investigation of the wider realm.  It is not the only point and evidence should not be gathered to support that sole position with other inconvenient evidence ignored.

I describe this conversation as being with an intelligent and educated woman friend but during this conversation I was struck by the unwillingness to acknowledge anything beyond a narrow view of the personal.  On one hand she could relate many examples of her friends of both sexes being victims of violence and abuse, she could ‘hear’ my pointing to current research out of NZ’s own Otago University that backs up the many studies on domestic violence as being substantially bi-directional and that this fact needs social attention to effectively deal with the issues of conflicted couples.  But then she fails to actually ‘hear’ that both sexes need to acknowledge their violence in whatever form it occurs before we as a society will ever have any chance of dealing successfully with violence.  Leaving aside the ‘elephant in the room’ that history shows humans as simply being violent fucks that periodically enact violence. Or even the smaller ‘elephant’ containing the issue of mothers enacting the majority direct child care time and influence but apparently not being responsible for the social learning of the child and how they are as adults in our world!

She can ‘hear’ that in actual fact men are the most assaulted sex in our (NZ) society but then she continued to proclaim women are the vulnerable sex in terms of violence in our society.  She fails to ‘see’ that the one sided distortion of dv that the white ribbon campaign, as the mainstream ‘mouthpiece’ continues to be allowed to ferment in our society is harmful to dealing with domestic violence in its entirety.  Nor was she willing to express any problem with NZ white ribbon day facebook moderators firstly erasing comments attempting to discuss these findings and such related issues and then blocking myself and another like-minded woman from contributing to their ‘public’ page. 

When discussing the very recent period of social outrage arising out of the ‘roastbusters’ saga occurring at the same time as the annual blame males white ribbon campaign.  Education apparently fails to raise real disquiet for  ‘poor science’ and lack of real working outcomes that must arise from like-thinkers insulated from any other input which cannot but perpetuate an endless ‘loop’ of their own views on a given situation.   Made more urgent and bizarre given the now decades of the same style of campaign.

Further she apparently saw no contradiction in her immediate family to the issues of gender division rhetoric and what is now a NZ reality.  She maintained her stance of discrimination occurring in our NZ society against women as her daughter is doing well at university and being a self-avowed radical feminist while her son did not know what he wanted to do and was between work in the service industry providing him with ‘mcjobs’. 

She still remained ‘stuck’ to the political claim of wage inequality between men and women that is not borne out by current research that points more clearly to individual choice to pick certain fields of study, to remain close to home, to take physically safer jobs, continuous time in the job and paid workplace etc.  Still further that this inequality remains supported through current research that shows men do more paid work and women more unpaid work within the family situation.  Yet this is clearly related to decision making that occurs as a couple intent on what is best for the family unit.  It only arises as a long term problem if our society continues to denigrate the worth of the nuclear and extended natural family in favour of the ‘cult of the individual’.  That is our society continues to assert that one’s worth is only measured by commercial marketplace criteria and that the reality of family strength and cohesion will remain the arena of conflict between biological drive and the various erosion from ideological and marketplace pressure.

Worst though is so called inequality in political representation.  There is no doubt that feminist ideology has been successful in its claims of ‘victimhood’.  Like a lot of things in life, it is a double edged position, in the scramble for ‘achievement’ of the individual how is any thinking voter, male or  the majority female, to reconcile a vote for a member of the sex apparently so easily manipulated and controlled in her personal aspiration?   

The mitigation to such thinking for my friend is life exposure to a culture outside our educated, previously affluence western first world society of NZ.  However that too is political device long employed by white, educated, academic middle and upper class women to conflate their experience to that of the lower class, other race, uneducated, third world to achieve some imagined release from the dread of having an average life.

 

Posted in Everyday life, Feminism-equity, Feminism-radical/gender, gender roles, gender roles, Gender wars/gender conflict/angst, Neo-liberal/globalisation/'free' market, nuclear family, NZ politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Fraud of ‘Socially Concerned’ Commentators-NZ.

For 2014, long winded attempts to connect all the ‘dots’, will recognise shorter attention spans by attempting to contain articles to single threads.  Good luck to me I say.  For me the single social issue for our New Zealand society is the impact of the ‘cult of the individual’ or the pursuit of personal fulfilment vs what used to held up as the social cornerstone of society, the family which I define as nuclear and extended natural (whanau) or blood relations. My main emphasise is to focus on destructive nature of gender division but always recognising that economic considerations circumscribe the social, that economics informs the  reason behind most social activity and changes.    I will retain integrity of the ‘dots’ or argument across various articles.

In recent times getting more involved with on-line political discussion blogs, articles and facebook pages I have been disgusted with the degree of censorship and blocking/expulsion of commenters  expressing contrary views.  In recent months I have been blatantly censored from several articles and ultimately expelled from two major sites of ‘debate’.  Confirming my reaction of disgust has been conversation with others, likewise treated.  My judgement has included a view of their attempted postings.  The replies or rebuttal to comments very quickly leave being message directed and become personal ‘attack’.  The so called moderators and/or authors of articles fail to police such behaviour but rather than allowing open debate including the name calling, they judge and then expel the ‘trouble maker’, the ‘trouble maker’ comments are often post-erased but their name is left within the comments attacking them.   There is no ‘right of reply’ to the criticisms directed at the ‘trouble maker’ and no alert put up by the ‘moderator’ that this person has been expelled and their comments erased let alone any explanation. All of which is a necessary ingredient to any claim to integrity on the part of the author or moderator.

Most casual observers will simply judge that the person has moved on as is common in the net world in any event. I have posted on https://www.facebook.com/stopgenderwarnz  the details of these censurers’ of debate and the ‘offending’ comments. 

What is left is an incestuous self-affirming bunch of non-critical thinkers that perpetuate their own thoughts through the voice of like thinkers.  If they were fucking each other we would see parallels to the in-breeds of duelling banjo country but in this scenario we have no lasting music!

Why does this matter?  Well it really matters when the same social ills continue to grip our society decade after decade and these ‘in-breeds’ are now part of the orthodox social thinking and mainstream ‘voice’ that has failed to deal with these social failings.  No problem has ever been fully fixed at any time in history without fully looking at all the components to the problem. Sure a finger in one leak fixes that leak but pressure is added to the next weakest area!

For you in the street keeping your head down, going about your daily struggles and your Saturday barbeque you may in your self-involved focus successfully ignore such as domestic violence, the campaigns about such and the overarching feminist ideology that informs much of New Zealand socio-political policy either directly in such as Ministry for Social Development or elsewhere because it suits the real power puppeteers in various arenas.  But someone in your family will divorce, will suffer through the family court; have their education outcomes impacted by what sexual organ they have and be more likely to warrant social and criminal suspicion based on having a penis than not. 

All the while this grotesque gender divide serves to allow our attention to diverted from the issues that are screwing both halves of the human species that occupy the realm of ordinary folk going about their lives.

Posted in Democratic rights protection, Feminism-equity, Feminism-radical/gender, gender roles, gender roles, Gender wars/gender conflict/angst, Neo-liberal/globalisation/'free' market, nuclear family, NZ politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Zealand-clean and green- “yeah right”.

New Zealand-clean and green

We delude ourselves about our clean green image which still attracts people to our shores. At this time 49% of the “I can actually get off my arse and vote” support a prime minister who has just released considerable areas off our coastline for oil exploration. Including to the company Anadarko which was involved with BP in the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling disaster. A situation that still impacts the region and is still killing people who live in along the coastline of that gulf through the effects of the dispersal agents used. Wake up NZ!

Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment