What is so threatening about standing up for women?

1. I read the Cactus Kate column, and found the following bit rather offensive This was no normal sexual assault case. New Zealand men had to deal with a difficult diplomatic incident, yes they stuffed it up but they are now trying to fix it.

   Personally I cant see how the offense was not normal. It was a common garden piece of sexual violence against a women. Too bloody common.

   That the offense ended up with a diplomatic incident and balls up (I am being kind here because my instincts tell me otherwise) has absolutely nothing to do with the assault, or making it “not normal”. It was very very normal which is the whole point missed by Shonkey and his idiot crew. Their attitude stands as an eloquent case against their sexist instincts.

   • Brilliant. Thank you, so much.

2. I’m wondering why my comment on the Herald’s editorial calling for diplomatic openness in the Billingsley case has still not been posted, when I submitted it Saturday morning. In fact there are no comments published on this article and it is now buried well down the list of opinion pieces. Is this deliberate suppression of debate on the topic? Hhhmmmmm!
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11303183

3. I think one reason some women are ‘against’ feminism is that they don’t realise that throughout their entire lives they have had to adjust their behaviour in minor ways just because they are women. These behaviour adjustments start so early and are so numerous that they go unquestioned – they are apparently just part of ‘normal’. For example, it wasn’t until I was in my early/mid twenties that I realised that, even though it was ‘normal’ to be groped by people that I simply walked past, and had never spoken to, when I went out to bars, it is actually completely unacceptable and part of being treated like an object. Up until then I had lived under the delusion that things just were that way, that it was ‘normal’ and therefore acceptable.
   I’m a teacher an observe on a daily basis the girls I teach accepting it as ‘normal’ that they are objectified. It is not ‘their fault’, and it is not because they ‘dress in a certain way’; it is part of the insidiousness of a society that claims that men and women are equal while ensuring that objectifying women is so ‘normal’ that many women themselves do not even realise that they are being treated as objects, and in fact would argue vehmently that they have complete equality.

4. Sadly Slater and his cronies spout flyblown and phlegmatic rhetoric without even knowing the full story. Want to see rape culture, look no further than whaleoil. Want to see the woman being blamed for a despicable act perpetrated by a sick man, look no further than whaleoil. They should be ashamed. Instead they seem to feel like righteous conquerors. I feel deeply saddened for Ms Billingsley. To be dragged out as some sort of media scapegoat for daring to speak out against a culture of yuk. PTSD? And that’s bad, or not even understandable after what you have put her through. Thanks Cameron. Nice of you to publish personal and deeply private medical facts that are probably not even accurate. Just so you can make hurtful jokes at someone else’s expense. You’re the very model of a decent human being.

5. Thank god hardly anyone reads this drivel. Clearly you fools don’t see a difference between campaigning for equal rights, and campaigning for preferential rights.

   The sacred war theme should play when one navigates to this page.

   • F O

   • Equal rights versus preferential rights? You should pose to yourself how you would get on (as a female) in a corporate boys club or any other male dominated institution? Would they all treat you equally? Or would they have their own preference and bias?

     I can tell you (as a male) that I have in corporate environments had to fight for my female colleagues equality of opportunity regularly with the “boys club”. And the females in question have had all that performance pressure and other unspoken biases to overcome after that. Its easy to make things “equal” by law or rule, even by logic: the real issue is how we males think and act. We do the preference towards males between our ears. I suspect that when males are asked to overcome that challenge they think they are being asked to give females a preference. The are not.

     • +10

       YES.

       Thank you.

       And to see further explanation of the differences between living as female and living as male in NZ society, we may look no further than Kelly Ellis’ most excellent piece here on TDB.

       Really. It seems so many people in NZ seem to think that we achieved a nirvana of equality for women when NZ women won the right to vote.

     • While I appreciate your sentiments, I am a little skeptical considering just yesterday you referred to Christine Rankin as “Spankin’ Rankin”.

       Does your fight for equality include women who don’t share your ideological standpoint?

       Or is it that derogatory terms are OK when used against right wingers?

       • Unsol, I just did a search on “Spankin” on TheStandard, the other site I leave posts on. No joy, but I did find others who called her that because of her opposition to a bit of child protection legislation. I have in the past given Rankin crap about her earrings true, but “spankin”, give me a break, low blow.

         PS Do you support your colleagues Left or Right, male or female when they deserve it? Hope so, sort of doubting though.

   • OMFG: “Clearly you fools don’t see a difference between campaigning for equal rights, and campaigning for preferential rights.”

     Aha! Caught you online, when you should be doing your homework! Does your mother know what you’re up to? Go back to your maths homework and leave the debate to the grownups.

   • The quality of the trolling on this site is really going downhill.

     OMFG you better check out the collected works of Gosman and Intrinsicvalue to see how it’s done properly

6. There is nothing threatening standing up for women.

   There is threat in using inaccurate data. Cunliffe, since you mention him and I know his recent quote, said domestic violence “is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children”. There are literally hundreds of academic articles that contradict that premise, including research from Aotearoa-New Zealand. In a nutshell the research repeatedly shows that women and men commit and are victims of family violence at similar rates.

   There is a one-sided dialogue between the government and DV NGOs and the community at large that never mentions the more balanced data that is repeatedly discovered in balanced studies.

   A main reason for this is for reasons best known to themselves the government and NGOs use almost exclusively data from police and self reporting. Police data does not and will not ever measure the rate of committing DV it measures the rate of reporting to police. There are many reasons some who are affected will not report to police. As such it is biased. Similarly, self reporting, as used in the Glenn Inquiry, is also biased.

   That is not to say there is no value in those reports but one must treat that data with caution and be acutely aware of the biases that are inherent in the data.

   Contrary to the thesis of this article, it seems to me that standing up for men, standing up for balance between men and women, with regard to DV is threatening.

   • “Cunliffe, since you mention him and I know his recent quote, said domestic violence “is perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women and children”. There are literally hundreds of academic articles that contradict that premise, including research from Aotearoa-New Zealand”

     No need to list hundreds, just give me one article substantiated by the Ministry of Health, Rape Crisis & Women’s Refuge.

     Actually I would even accept anecdotal evidence from the likes of say Victim Support…

     No one would argue that women have a lot to answer for when it comes to domestic violence & child abuse, but to suggest that women are true predator makes it very difficult for me to take your views seriously.

     • 1. Rape Crisis and Women’s Refuge are biased. That is not to say they don’t do good work. Nor that their work is not essential. However they do not reach out to the entire population. Few men would think to contact them when they are in trouble.

       Neither of those organisations are primarily, if at all, interested in men as victims and women as perpetrators of DV or IPV.

       2. Nevertheless Erin Pizzey a founder of women’s refuges in UK stated unequivocally that the women who came to her refuge were in the majority as violent or more violent than the men that they were fleeing from. She took decades to get this published. She was hounded by feminists who would not accept what she found until she was forced into exile because of death threats.

       3. The Ministry of Health

       http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/family-violence/family-violence-questions-and-answers

       report men being victims up to around 50% of the rate of women as victims.

       Unbelievably these numbers however are from different studies using different methodologies therefore they cannot reasonably be compared on a straight forward numerical basis.

       On other data, they, the Ministry of Health who are charged with the health of our people do not have data for men – its “unavailable” or simply not mentioned. This is unbelievable when there are independent scientific academic studies available.

       To me this indicates a clear predisposed bias against even collecting information on how men are affected by this issue.

       4. Again from the UK published last year https://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/140729-elizabeth-bates-report-on-dv.pdf

       This report states among other things “women were significantly more physically and verbally aggressive to their partners than
       men were”

       5. You can find on the Ministry of Social Development website research by Professor David Fergusson et al in a paper on ‘Ethnic Identity and Intimate Partner Violence’ https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj33/33-Pages-126-145.pdf

       a discussion of gender. They found

       ” No statistically significant main effects for gender, or gender-by-ethnicity interactions, were found … suggesting that for both IPV victimisation and perpetration, males and females reported similar levels of both IPV victimisation and perpetration, and the results were similar for Māori and non-Māori females and males.”

       • You are perpetuating a typical MRA line that “women are just as bad as men” by making statements like “women and men commit and are victims of family violence at similar rates.”

         Its quite simply, untrue. And you data you’ve linked to does not back up your statement.

         Your link to the NZ Ministry of Health states “Between 33 and 39 percent of women have been hit or forced to have sex by a partner at least once during their lifetime… 18 percent of men have been hit by a partner at least once during their lifetime” with zero context. One would really have to read the studies from which these numbers are quoted to gain further information.

         Your second link is to a study which uses the conflict tactics scale which is controversial in that it makes no allowance for context or motivational factors; it makes no distinction in who initiates violence, intention, history nor patterns of violence in relationships. In short, this scale would count violence as equal if one partner beings it by punching the other and the other responds in self defence by hitting back. See how that’s a problem? Its rather crude.That study which you like so much (you’ve linked to it twice) has further problems in its design. The number of males and females was unequal, and the age of males was significantly older than the females (older = more life experience = more exposure to potentially violent incidents) yet it made no adjustments I can see for this difference. Faulty methodology.

         The MSD study you’ve linked to also uses a conflict tactics scale. Again, poor methodology.

         This is actually rather common in studies of intimate partner violence.

         So… instead of looking at studies with faulty methodology how about we just count the dead bodies? In this way we can avoid absolutely all of the “he said, she said” bullshit. Dead bodies are rather hard to hide in a small country like New Zealand.

         New Zealand Police statistics (even you can’t possibly argue they’re biased?) show clearly between 2000 – 2004, 45 women were murdered by their male partner or ex partner, and only 3 men were murdered by their female partner or ex partner.

         Clearly, women are NOT as violent as men. Men do NOT experience domestic violence at the same rate as women.

         • 1. I only went to the Ministry of Health because the previous responder had asked for a source from the Ministry of Health.

           2. I pretty much pointed out the inconsistency in the quoted data as you have. Superficially at least, however the data seems to exaggerate the victimisation of women in that the numbers quoted are for women who have been hit or forced to have sex whereas the numbers quoted for men are simply those who have been hit.

           3. The “conflicts tactics scale” or not the study treats men and women similarly unlike the Ministry of Health data which goes downhill from the studies quoted above.

           4. The repeated meme from the DV industry is that “Violence is never okay” Women’s Refuge. But now when the numbers don’t stack up in your favour you resort to needing to know the reasons for the violence. For what’s its worth there are other studies that have shown where violence is non-reciprocal in a male/female situation the woman is most often the initiator.

           5. The number of males and females in the survey does not in itself cause a problem of bias. Its not the most efficient way to handle data – one sample is likely to have higher variability than the other. Variability is not however bias. It typically will simply mean that a bigger difference will be required before that difference is significant.

           6. As far as I can tell the researchers did adjust for the age difference in respondents. This seems to make it very clear “Owing to the older mean age of the males
           in this sample, age was controlled in the analysis of sex differences.”

           7. Whatever the shortcomings of the “conflict tactics scale” that you perceive these studies were presumably peer reviewed. In addition these were simply a small sample of studies that have similar results. Here is a bibliography of hundreds of studies, that involve hundreds of thousands of respondents, that found women were similarly or more violent than men.

           http://mynation.net/pics-voice/women-assult.pdf

           8. Yes deaths are harder to fake and fudge. So in that sense they are less biased. Cherry picking five years from a decade or more ago is not so much unbiased. The Q+A programme used the Family Violence Death Review data which over the past 11 years or so had 14 women and 7 men dying per year on average.

           Nevertheless whilst death rates are unbiased, unless you or I are hiding a few bodies somewhere, they measure precisely that – deaths as a result of domestic violence. They are not necessary a representative or a good proxy for the wider problem of domestic violence, which by all accounts occurs with much greater frequency, measured by the minute rather than the one death in two or three weeks.

           9. When it comes to wider domestic violence, yes I believe police statistics are biased. They measure the number of reported incidents not the number of incidents. Many are unreported. The police themselves estimate that only 18% are reported, I think this was the number quoted at the recent Women’s Refuge Symposium. It is widely considered that men are less likely to report domestic violence because of the stigma of being a beaten man – that is not to diminish any stigma that many women feel. Anecdotally, there is much evidence to suggest that when men call police they are at times arrested even when not the aggressor – I have to admit I have not seen studies investigating this.

           10. Finally, it is very unclear that women are not as violent as men. Having said that I don’t really care what the rates are or who is the most violent. Most women and most men are not violent. What I care about is that services are available to all in need. The current gendered culture means that it is all but impossible for many men who are victims in practice to receive help.

       • Wayne Burrows: “Rape Crisis and Women’s Refuge are biased. That is not to say they don’t do good work. Nor that their work is not essential. However they do not reach out to the entire population.”

         I was an adult when these services were set up, as a response to what women and children were experiencing every day, at the hands of men. And it was that violence – some of it fetching up in the courts, much of it unreported to police – which motivated women’s groups.

         I accept what the research shows with regard to gender-related violence, but nonetheless, at the time of these services’ establishment, women were concerned with women and children, and offering them refuge and help.

         At that time, domestic violence wasn’t taken seriously by either police or the courts; in fact, I’d argue that they still don’t, despite claims to the contrary. If we were to protect ourselves, we were obliged to take the initiative.

         An observation about the Fergusson paper: its primary purpose was to investigate Maori over-representation in intimate partner violence (IPV) statistics, rather than gender differences in general. As far as I could find (though I have done a bit of skim-reading), the excerpt you quote is the only reference to the issue.

         I note the following from the paper: “It should be noted that the vast majority of IPV measured in the present cohort was relatively mild, consisting of minor psychological and physical aggression. There were relatively few cases of serious or severe IPV, and only three cases in which individuals reported an injury as a result of IPV.”

         The issue with regard to injury or death resulting from IPV is sexual dimorphism; because men are generally bigger and stronger than women, in general they can inflict a great deal more damage than can women. This is why the cases ending up in the courts are disproportionately male to female.

         It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that children – male and female – exposed to family violence are more likely to repeat those behaviours as adults. Not all will, of course, but it would be naive to think that women who’ve been exposed as children to family violence wouldn’t also be affected similarly to men.

         • “I was an adult when these services were set up, as a response to what women and children were experiencing every day, at the hands of men. And it was that violence – some of it fetching up in the courts, much of it unreported to police – which motivated women’s groups”

           Exactly. Women’s Refuge was created by women for a need we saw amongst women.

           For men to then cry “it’s sexist!” is disingenuous.

           If there is a corresponding need for men to have somewhere to go when they are being abused by women, then men are free to set up a mens refuge.

           There’s nothing stopping you Wayne!

           • @ Lara: “If there is a corresponding need for men to have somewhere to go when they are being abused by women, then men are free to set up a mens refuge.”

             I completely agree, and I encourage men to start work on such a service.

             • except they won’t

               they’ve had many many years to get their act together

               they haven’t done so because there is quite simply not enough demand!!!!

               • @ Lara: “except they won’t”

                 Sadly, I think you’re right. I’ve heard this refrain from men over and over, with regard to services for women which have been set up, either by women themselves, or through concerted activism on the part of women.

                 In fairness to men, I do believe that it’s a group of men who’ve instituted stopping violence services for men themselves.

                 But if they want a men’s equivalent of women’s refuge and rape crisis, they can do what we did – and many heroic souls still do – get out, advocate and fundraise. Don’t just complain about it and then do nothing.

                 • You two are truly disingenuous – Women’s Refuge and Rape Crisis centers receive Government funding and have so for years.

                   Asking men to do it on their own dime without any public support reveals an indifference to male victims. “just go do your thing over there, them tax dollars are OURS”

                   It’s worth repeating that men’s health issues receive a fraction of the resources women’s do.

                   • Rape crisis deals helps male victims.

                     And why does tearing apart women’s refuge make sense if you think you need a male one. If you think you can find ‘actual’ peer reviewed and accepted evidence and put it to the powers that be, I am sure they would be delighted to help.

                     Why not approach the Human Rights Commission and ask them to do an enquiry into the aweful violence men face from women on a daily basis?

                     Oh yes, I feel SOOO privileged to have visited a women’s refuge. Got to hang with a bunch of cool feminists and drink cups of tea, all on someone else’s dime. Had a fuckin great time. Not!

                     These people deal with devastating problems on a daily basis. They are needed and work largely underfunded. You think it’s fair to attack them and see them as an example of ‘extended female privilege’!

                     ????

                     Your logic is inconsistent and you are behaving like a spoilt child blaming his sister for the fact mommy wouldn’t give him a biscuit.

                   • And the reason mommy wouldn’t give you a biscuit is as you had been glutting yourself on pie all day and didn’t need it.

                   • But, yes, go on blaming your sister for it. See how far that gets you.

             • I think that it would be great if a bunch of good men could create a service like this that could also offer:

               – leadership and education in appropriate sexual behaviour.

               – more anger management counselling and advice.

               – some anti-violence advice and education.

               I think these things are desperately needed by a large number of men.

   • Doh! I pushed the wrong button and liked this post by mistake… Bloody fat fingers and small phone! lol

     What really upsets me is political skewing of scientific results by non-scientists, and scientists who bias their results to suit their argument. Everyone does it, and I think it stinks. Read a good article on Forbes of all places about it yesterday.

     http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/03/science-is-not-democratic/

     Cheery picking articles to suit your purpose and spread disinformation are the actions of desperate, corrupt, and power hungry, bad bad people. You can find statistics to suit any view if you google long enough. I would leave it to independent social scientists to provide accurate information, NOT a trolling internet cretin with an axe to grind.

     Anyway. Rant over.

     I did find this cool picture the other day that I thought was quite a nice metaphor for my opinions.

     https://fbcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-0/10352929_689149761154220_4956355540178415648_n.jpg

     Hope the link works, otherwise sorry!

     • Oh, and it’s kinda confusing with all these laddered comments but that comment ^ was directed at Wayne.

       • I too am opposed to cherry picking data.

         To me there is a major problem when data is cherry picked e.g. the five years data from a decade or so ago when more recent data with quite a different picture is available.

         I just gave examples from hundreds of academic studies that have reasonably consistent views away from the main stream view promulgated by the government and NGOs.

         I try wherever possible to at least look at the original articles or sources of data.

         • I am not meaning to downplay any assaults by women on men. Any violence, physical, emotional or sexual is a terrible thing.

           I did cherry pick (I can do it too) a quick review of those studies you mention, just to give you an example of another way someone has looked at that very data;

           In a 2002 review of this research Michael Kimmel found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90% of “systematic, persistent, and injurious” violence is perpetrated by men.

           Then I had a look on the ministry of justice website for a NZ take on sexual violence and found this (IMO a MOJ site is, I would hope, very accurate on the statistics they use)

           http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/s/safer-communities-action-plan-to-reduce-community-violence-sexual-violence/the-effects-and-extent-of-violence

           Sexual violence

           Sexual violence appears to be highly prevalent and can have a serious and long-impact on the physical and mental health of victims.
           The NZNSCV 2001 showed that women’s experience of sexual interference or assault over their lifetime was considerably higher than men’s. About twenty percent of the female participants stated that they had experienced sexual interference or assault at some time in their life, compared to 5% of the male participants. It was higher still for young women (26% of 17- 24 year olds) and for Maori women (23%).
           ***Almost all of the victims said the offender was male*** and most said that they already knew their offender(s), and sexual victimisation was often experienced more than once, even within a relatively short period of time. Fourteen percent of women said that they had experienced sexual victimisation before the age of 17, and for some of these women, this had occurred at a very young age.
           Almost half of the victims saying they had been sexually interfered with or sexually assaulted said they were ‘very much’ or ‘quite a lot’ affected by their most recent experience. More than two-fifths of victims viewed what they had experienced as a crime, but slightly more than half saw it as either wrong but not a crime, or as just something that happened.

           So to surmise. Yes gender symmetry, I guess it is true that both women and men try to hurt each other sometimes and both at alarmingly high rates.

           Re. Sexual violence, it seems to me to be overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. Where does it stem from? I guess biology and testosterone have a role. More importantly though, in my opinion, is that some men, wrongly, feel they have a right to take what is not offered and place themselves in a position of power over women and men. That fight for supremacy, control and domination. I think these sick men need some serious education on the issue, and the best way to educate them is to be as brutally honest as you can be. It is not on, just because our society and founding Christianity are guilty of teaching male dominance and a patriarchal approach does not mean that it is right. Control does not equal success. Power does not define greatness. Humanity is what is important in getting on in this society. A bit of good old love, mutual respect and treating people with dignity can go a long way towards a happier life.

         • Ps. What is that *mynation.net* website that is hosting that large list of gender symmetry papers? And did you really read them all? Your pubmed fees must be exorbitant!

           I don’t have access to or much experience in social sciences articles. I’m more molecular biosciences based and have a lot of access to those types of online libraries.

         • OMFG! I had a look on that mynation.net site you link from and found some sickening depravity.

           This:

           ‘Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, where the wife is over 15 years of age, is not rape.’

           Oh and this:

           ‘BAN fetus Killing : Abortion / Fetus killing in the name of sex determination, Many Indian women are forced to Abort, unborn children. As per catholic doctrine Abortion is a SIN and in India it’s a CRIME, still many women are forced to kill Fetus. Not only women are forced but we also found many modern women abort without husband consent too. – See more at: http://mynation.net/#sthash.QX1cox9f.dpuf‘

           I don’t even know why I bothered responding to you. You are a toxic cretin, and this site you quote and link from seems to be entirely about treating women like a chattel.

           After consideration I would like to say, go away and don’t come back.

           F.O. & F.U.

         • Oh look, here’s another lovely gem from that website you are so proud of posting from:

           Dr.Dsouza
           Member
           http://supari.org/maritalrape/

           Marital rape is another tool in feminists hand, if a women planning to Divorce, its easy way out, sleep with him then cry for Rape, man will be arrested with proof that he had sex.

           Who will judge this is rape or not. as Indian Laws always biased towards men and burdon of proof lies on Men;

           In India women has many option to way out of A Marriage. This may be new trend when they failed in 498A and DV, when men started to counter it and won.

           in this situation its impossible to prove. who will judge it was sex or Rape. ?

           ///

           Page admin person, I think that this creep needs to be banned and blocked.

           • http://mynation.net/voice/1in4/

             Wow, another effin disgusting article from your source of ‘academic’ research. Why do I keep doing this to myself *gag* – it’s making me so freakin angry!

             • Me too Amy.

               I am so sick of arguing the same bloody basic points with MRAs. It’s exhausting. It actually gave me a nightmare last night.

               National has instructed NZ police to stop collecting data on “domestic incidents” as a separate dataset. That’s why we don’t have good data for the last few years. Nothing to do with cherry picking!

               Even when one points out just counting dead bodies hows a HUGE discrepancy in the number of women killed by intimate partners compared to the number of men, the MRAs tell us we’re “cherry picking”.

               They won’t accept any information from Women’s Refuge or anyone who works at the frontline with abused people. They complain those people are somehow biased. But working with victims of abuse does not make one biased, it makes one better informed.

               But no. Nothing, just nothing will sway their preconceived bias. They insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that women are just as violent as men. Despite the dead bodies overwhelmingly being women.

               And finally, I have noticed that NZ police data has good data on victims (age, gender and ethnicity) but not on perpetrators. Why is that? Does that very male organisation not want the public to know just how much damage men cause? One has to wonder.

               I just can’t engage with MRAs anymore. Its too infuriating and distressing. Over to someone else please with more energy than me.

               • I couldn’t sleep last night either after reading that dross either. Finally got to sleep at 10am… – just awoke. I feel stupid for even engaging.

               • Do you even know what a MRA is?

                 • Found this definition in the urban dictionary.

                   http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MRA

         • Wayne Burrows, If the world was fair;

           You would get pushed down the stairs by Tony Veitch. Then Paul Henry would make jokes on prime time tv about where the balustrade ended up, then, Cameron Slater would write a blog about how you were asking for it due to your too short stubbies and rugby top that was too tight. People would then make jokes about your PTSD and how it never really happened, and Toni Vietch will carry on as a pillar of the community.

           Sound like fun?

           • Instead you extrapolate from one article that I sourced from some search or other to suggest I endorse an entire website. That sort of reasoning is faulty. As is some of the rest of your logic.

             I presented a bibliography, I assume you know what one of those is. It is not my bibliography it is someone else’s. I did not ever claim to have read all of the articles.

             mynation.net is not my source. I read articles from many sources, not mine. Many of those have views that I do not agree with.

             Somehow from your extrapolation you think you are entitled to insult me.

             • Hi Wayne.

               I quote from you:

               ‘I just gave examples from hundreds of academic studies that have reasonably consistent views away from the main stream view promulgated by the government and NGOs. I try wherever possible to at least look at the original articles or sources of data.

               ***I try wherever possible to at least look at the original articles or sources of data.***’

               What did you do, type ‘anti-feminist’ into google to see what came up? That site is about as anti-feminist as they get.

               Oh, and you think I need to be ‘entitled’ to insult you? Are you saying I don’t have a right to give you my honest opinion?

               • Fuck off and fuck you even if abbreviated are not honest opinions they are by any standard outright abuse.

                 This site says it has no tolerance for that sort of abuse but hypocritically they allow you to be abusive to me.

                 • You know Wayne, I can understand standing up for men. People need help sometimes, male and female. More prostate screaming for example is positive.

                   What I do not get is why you need to ‘take down’ feminist women to achieve this. One thing does not equate with the other.

                   Also, the way you cling to fringe and conspiracy views on scientific literature that is overwhelmingly clear makes me wonder. Why not trust the women’s refuge? They are staffed by social scientists who deal with horrible situations on a daily basis. Why not trust the MO Justice? They put their stats out openly and clearly (sure not often enoghh). Why not trust the ministry of health? They likewise can be trusted. I have worked for DHB’s and the health system all my life and I can tell you, without doubt, their overwhelming desire is to help people and do good.

                   Sure, some things could be better for men, campaign for that, yay! I don’t think you need to try and tear apart feminism for that to happen.

                   In summary, the way you cling to fringe and conspiracy like interpetation of actual science worries me. Contrary to what you may beleive, the world is not out to get you. I don’t believe any feminist would be against more prostate testing or any other men’s issue that has been clearly shown to be problematic (ie anti-violence counselling etc).

                   What I do have a problem with is you sourcing hundreds of scientific articles from a pro rape web site that is all about denigrating women and run by (IMO) twisted and narcissistic sociopath’s who have an overblown sense of what powers they should have to control, demean and belittle. That is why I said FO & FU.

                   And you know what worries me more – you seem to be taking the most umbrage over being told to FO. You don’t even seem to be slightly ashamed of searching a pro rape website for scientific data you can twist to suit your own world view. Do you feel shame? Do you feel any emotions?

                   • I didn’t search any pro-rape website. I searched for the article which I had read before. I am sure you can find it in many places. I found it and I posted it. Actually I had the link saved from a recent previous search for the article. As far as I am aware apart from to get that article I have never been to that website.

                     I am certainly not pro-rape. I am pro-women. I am pro-men. I am pro-equality. I am anti-feminist.

                     I know that many will find the last statement a contradiction however it has been my experience that feminists despite any dictionary definition are not out for equality. They are about extending privileges (over men) for women. You can see the anger that simply putting forward an opposing view based on academic research created.

                   • So, I out you for posting from pro-rape websites and you’re like ‘meh’ ‘anyone couldadunit’, and the reason I asked if you feel any shame or emotions in general is that your comments and those posts caused one person to have nightmares and another a night being unable to sleep. You seem not to care.

                     I also note you see yourself as anti-feminist, not anti-feminism, so does that mean you just don’t like feminists at all and if you manage to hurt them, that’s a good thing? Another notch to add to your belt?

                     I feel such a disconnect with you Wayne, I have always seen feminism as such a positive thing and a number of my girlfriends and ex-girlfriends have been such beautifully staunch feminists and been such lovely, strong, and empowered women.

                   • And you say you are ‘pro-women’ but ‘anti-feminist’, so that’s essentially saying you are pro ~50% of women. The rest you are anti?!? So you are nice enough only to hate 50% of women? (and a surprisingly large percentage of men too)?

                   • And clearly Rape Crisis and Women’s Refuge are examples of a female’s extended privilege.

                 • It is not a competition, to see who has it hardest.

                   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

                 • So, Wayne. What is feminism to you? And, why are you anti-feminism?

           • Re: the Toni Vietch comment; i have been feeling a bit bad about writing this when I was in angry rant mode. It is never something I want to happen, to ANYONE, I was trying (perhaps poorly) to make a metaphor and try to make Wayne understand what is happening to a number of victims in NZ. Kinda very black homour. It actually had me curled up in the foetal position on the floor and crying at one stage. I am sorry if this caused offence. I was trying to make a point and am not sure it was clear enough. Maybe I should have said ‘imagine this’?

     • @ Amy: “I did find this cool picture the other day that I thought was quite a nice metaphor for my opinions.”

       Yes indeed, that’s a great pic, isn’t it! It’s not dissimilar to a cartoon commenting on the issue of equal employment opportunities, which circulated through our office 20-odd years ago.

       Plus ça change, plus ça meme chose, huh? Shows how far we’ve come in the intervening years, maybe…

       • I know right! Seems so simple when broken down into and image like that.

7. Rachael you make some very valid & fantastic points – especially with CK whose post I found completely abhorrent & disappointing when I know she is capable of so much more good. She wrote a brilliant piece a while ago about the most underestimated abuse in NZ – emotional abuse, especially that which women are often subjected to by their partners. So it is disheartening that she is often so quick to join the misogynist chorus sung by the slater parasitic wasps et al.

   But unfortunately the left wing vs women who don’t fit into their preferred ideological camp is just as prevalent as the right wing vs women.

   For example, just yesterday the TDB spoke about how Christine Rankin was a sure way to kill off Colin Craig’s chances in the coming election with one of your commentators referring to her as ““Spankin’ Rankin” & stating she is just the gal to help Col do it.

   She is one of the most criticised & ridiculed women in NZ and for what? Because, as someone on The Standard commented she dares to wear “earrings, heals and micro mini skirt (they also added “don’t you just love “conservatism”.)…..and according to another commentator Anne, “plunging neck-lines”? Because she happens to have been married a few times? How is this even relevant – are we in the 19th century or the 21st century? Because she managed to go from being a DPB recipient then temporary clerk at WINZ to be becoming the youngest GM in the public service ever?

   Or is it because as a white female she dares to offer her opinions on & speak out against this country’s horrendous child abuse, neglect & maltreatment record? Yes she she can be controversial, but the fact remains she has done more than most people when it comes to putting verbs in her sentences, getting off her butt & actually doing something about the issues she is passionate about yet her opinions are often laughed off as irrelevant all because she dared to wear short skirts & big dangly earrings in the 90s. Apparently this means she deserves to be mocked, shamed & ridiculed by this blog & Cameron Slater….given his complete lack of empathy & moral compass it is never a good day when one is on the same team as him; ironically Christine is probably the kind of person who would fight hardest for Tania Billingsley’s right to disown the victim label & refuse name suppression.

   Given how people are so quick to judge & ridicule women for their appearance – whether Helen, Christine or Holly (no doubt you are aware of the whale oil mod Travis making Holly the Face of the Day so everyone could mock her appearance – see http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/06/face-of-the-day-538/ ) then yes NZ does have a long way to go – right wing, left wing, centre wing or wingless – when it comes to putting ideologies to one side, standing up & supporting strong women trying to make a difference.

   As women we need to make a stand against misogynists & gossips alike & we need to seek common ground with other women who may have a different ideological take on things. We need to seek similarities rather than differences.

   If all the strong NZ women banded together – from the likes of yourself to Metiria, Jacinda, Judith, Hekia & Christine – this country would be completely different.

   Yet I can’t see this ever happening as no matter how far up the power ladder they go women seem to always look for ways to tear each other down.

   And it is for this reason I think that men still tend to dominate politics & business.

   • I actually agree with you!
     I may not believe in everything Christine does, but frankly, when I was younger she became a bit of a hero for standing up to the patriachal system she found herself enmeshed in. I swore at the TV at all the commentators who ripped her to shreds. I was disgusted with my CHP birth father who said she looked like a whore. I still admire her. I wouldn’t have any problems working with her on issues we have common ground on.
     But I can’t say that on behalf of other bloggers on this site nor public who post comments. However be reassured that I at least do not resort to slagging off right-wing women based on their personality, looks and history. I am furious with 3 of National’s female MP’s for their political decisions, but I can appreciate their journey and don’t care about their weight, looks or dress. I don’t do the whole tag women politicians with derogatory names thing, because I know how it feels to be tagged with one myself. (In my case, I am apparently the ‘Green Taliban’s Resident Whore’). We need to concentrate on policy not personality.

     • Hi Rachael thank you – I knew you would as I know of the work you have put into women’s issues (well, society’s issues!) so knew there was no way you would ever agree with or participate in disparaging comments about a woman just because you didn’t agree with their policies.
       It is frustrating & sickening that most people can’t separate the two – I don’t agree with many Green policies but I would always be inclined to defend anyone who was referred to as terrorist or a whore because if their political views, especially when that person claims they are a Christian!!!!
       It is always ironic the same people who make such awful comments are always the first demand ‘play the ball, not the person’ when it suits!
       Until this country takes leadership from good strong women like yourself & seek to find common ground – I would think that we all want a prosperous country where everyone is fed, watered, clothed & safe from abuse – rather than seeking to emphasis differences & pull each other down, I can’t see how anything will change…,including the rampant but seemingly insidious misogyny so prevalent in this country.

   • “earrings, heals and micro mini skirt (they also added “don’t you just love “conservatism”.)…..and according to another commentator Anne, “plunging neck-lines”? – Context is everything, remember Cunliffes apology? Sound clip quoting…the former was me, the latter Anne. I was referring to her corporate power dressing and earring being at odds with “conservative” views of women, Anne referred to the famous complaint from the head of the Public Service. Maybe we are unfair to Christine, I am inclined more to the view that she becomes a target for the misogynist views her party espouses.

     I read with interest your concept that women need to band together, seek common ground etc. Sounds dreadfully familiar: it reminds me of the thinking of men that excludes preference to women. There is a strong link between method and results.

   • @ Unsol: with regard to Christine Rankin, “She is one of the most criticised & ridiculed women in NZ and for what?”

     For the following reasons:
     1. For attempting to parlay her appearance – frocks very skimpy at both ends, high heels, outrageous earrings – into a top position at WINZ. This was, as far as many of us were concerned, undignified for someone in her position. There were then plenty of senior women in the public service who were much more circumspect in their dress and manners. At the time, some senior males complained that they were being obliged to avert their eyes from undue displays of flesh: actually, this is a form of sexual harassment. It wouldn’t be tolerated if it were men showing off large amounts of manly flesh at ministerial meetings and the like.

     We like our senior public servants discreet and non-flamboyant. And, to quote the Bible (I think): “by their works shall ye know them”. This is an axiom of which Mrs Rankin would’ve done well to take note: her contract wasn’t renewed, and it was because she failed to perform, not because she wore very short skirts and showed too much cleavage.

     2. While she was CEO of WINZ, there was huge wastage of taxpayers’ money on excessively lavish staff training and “team building”. WINZ also dismally failed to handle efficiently the Student Allowance scheme when the job was given to it, causing misery and inconvenience for thousands of students.

     3. On the issue of women sticking together, it’s worth remembering that on Rankin’s watch, WINZ embarked on a relentless campaign against solo mothers on a benefit. That campaign involved folk being encouraged to dob people in if they thought said people might possibly be rorting the system. Not a good time for many.

     4. Then, of course, there’s her notorious opposition to repealing s59 of the Crimes Act (where “Spankin’ Rankin” originates….)

     She comes across as a publicity junkie, so keen to be out there that it doesn’t seem to matter to her that sometimes she compromises her own dignity and privacy in its pursuit.

     All in all, while I’m usually keen to support women in their endeavours, I think I’ll draw the line at Rankin, thanks.

8. Great article.

   Tania is now showing publicly what actually happens when a woman reports even an ‘attempted rape’.
   This is what happens.

   It is even worse within the ‘authorities’ when it is actual rape that is trying to be reported – if you survive it!

   Of course she has PTSD – she is a survivor of attempted rape and PTSD is just one of the direct outcomes of her situation.

   I think lots of men see nothing wrong with groping women as they walk past them, because the man would love a woman to walk past them a grab hold of the front of their trousers. Time to start giving them a kick to the front of their trousers instead of ignoring it.

   Men rape women, and children. It is a huge problem.

   Lets turn feminism into a good word. Lets be feminists and be proud of it. Lets own the word feminist -it means we are standing up for ourselves, and all other women and children who are the victims of sexual and violent abuse perpetrated overwhelmingly by men.

   It is good to be a feminist.
   People who try to denegrate feminists are themselves anti-feminists, which means they are publicly announcing that they are ok with rape and violence against women and children.

   Do not continue to allow yourselves to be gas-lighted – you have a right to step out of that situation, and the police are supposed to help you out of it – so pressure them – make them help you!

   Wear your PTSD proudly, and speak about how you got it in the first place. You don’t have to hide it, or hide away with it. If you got PTSD because you were raped, as a child or a grown woman, tell people – especially when they ask. And if your husband or partner beats you – even hospitalises you, speak out about it – don’t keep it all to yourself. Write a book. You have the first hand experiences. Write about it.

   I personally have survived captive rape and torture, and more. I have PTSD. I have just written my book. If I don’t find a publisher, then it won’t get published – but at least it is all written, and released from my brain now.

   Blessings

   Opinion,

   • It took years fro the term “suffragette” to become acceptable. We now celebrate Kate Sheppard. When we men generally celebrate the term “feminist” you will have made huge advances: until then keep us blokes on our toes. And put the book on the web.

     • Nick.

       How do you put a book on the web?

       • Mistery, try Blurb or Create Space to put your book together.

         Once done you can put it on Amazon to sell it.

         • Thankyou Lara, and Nick.
           Will give them a go.

9. Good question Mistery, you may need a geek to help. I found this, they may help. http://adbooks.tripod.com/build.html

10. Instead you extrapolate from one article that I sourced from some search or other to suggest I endorse an entire website. That sort of reasoning is faulty. As is some of the rest of your logic.

    I presented a bibliography, I assume you know what one of those is. It is not my bibliography it is someone else’s. I did not ever claim to have read all of the articles.

    mynation.net is not my source. I read articles from many sources, not mine. Many of those have views that I do not agree with.

    Somehow from your extrapolation you think you are entitled to insult me.

Comments are closed.