When women do it, it’s ok, but when men do it they are evil – Andrea Vance’s jaw dropping conclusion on Sarah Dowie

12
898

Now, before I begin, it’s important to acknowledge that I have an enormous amount of respect for Andrea Vance, I think her journalism is amongst the best in New Zealand. She provides light when most Journalists only produce heat.

But, her latest column on the double standards that Sarah Dowie endured seems to make the conclusion that when women do it, it’s ok, but when men do it they are evil.

Vance righteously points out the double standards at play when it comes to sex, that the Men are viewed as lads and Women are viewed as promiscuous. It’s a terrible cultural setting that should be dismantled.

BUT.

Sarah Dowie was not referred to Police because society thinks of men as studs and woman as sluts, Sarah Dowie was investigated by the Police because she attempted to goad another human being into committing suicide…

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

…Vance glosses over this to make her point, but it’s something that can’t really be glossed over with such ease can it?

In a post #MeToo cultural landscape where accusation is the new evidential threshold (we saw that with Newsrooms extraordinary decision to print 4 anonymous accusations against Jami-Lee Ross which turned out to be pre-planned smear attacks cooked up in Simon Bridges office) and where all men are evil rapists, the ability to just shrug off any action that doesn’t fit that narrative is extraordinary.

Let’s be clear, Sarah Downie wasn’t investigated by the NZ Police because of out dated sexual double standards, she was investigated by the Police because she sent a text message that tried to push Jami-Lee Ross into committing suicide, which he then went out and attempted.

To gloss over that with the ease that Vance does to make her point marks this column out clearly as an ‘opinion’ piece, and certainly not journalism.

 

12 COMMENTS

  1. He taunts count as free speech and she should not have been prosecuted for them. However this doesn’t mean she isn’t an evil bitch.

    • Free speech my foot. “Free speech” doesn’t extend to inciting people to harm themselves or others.

        • This little thread starts with one of the stupidest statements i’ve read on these comments sections for at least a day, which is something the people who pass off their ignorance, and basic stupidity should be ashamed of… Why the need to add utterly meaningless tosh to that mix? Do you people actually read your comments before displaying your lack of cognition to the world? I think it would be a blessing if you did…

  2. Double standards. If it was a male and a Maori or Polynesian. They’d get 2 years definitely in the lock up.

  3. I wouldn’t ever consider dating a married girl. For random sex and hook up? Sure. But a serious relationship for 10 years? No.

  4. Vance may be premature in assuming Dowie has got it worse than Ross. I would guess that she has a better chance of being re-elected at the next election than he has.

  5. What’s extraordinary, as Martyn says, is that Vance doesn’t acknowledge that Dowie was part of a vicious anonymous attack by four women on Newsroom, probably orchestrated by Bridges and Bennett. Dowie played at being the victim of a manipulating man without admitting she was 10 years older than him, an experienced lawyer and a fellow politician. It’s also likely she gained advancement through her association with Ross, who was Bridges’ strategist. Some victim, huh?
    She never came forward to admit her role in that affair and didn’t answer emails when I asked her about her about it for a story I was writing. So much for the values of fighting fair she espoused in her maiden speech.
    I am very pleased that she wasn’t charged with inciting a suicide because the bar should be very, very high for any such charge.
    There is a shocking double standard for men and women in sexual matters but there is also a shocking double standard at work in Vance’s account, given any man found to have sent such an abusive text would have been out of a job and possibly unemployable as well.

  6. This text alone now sets a legal precedent allowing exchanges of vulgar and abusive communication between New Zealanders, apparently breaching the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 Principles 2 (threatening/menacing language), 3 (grossly offensive), 4 (indecent), 5 (harassing). If you want you can now publicly describe the PM or any other citizen as a fucking ugly pig without fear of prosecution. The statement “You deserve to die” seems unambiguous (breach of Principle 8, inciting or encouraging harm), as do the similar hypothetical statements “Throw yourself down a flight of steps you thieving scumbag”, “Hang yourself you greedy life-sapper”, and “Drop dead you murdering psychopath”.

  7. As much as this may bother some maybe many it comes to my attention that a lot of topics need to be brought up and I think the main one is the verbal negativity why it’s there to begin with and the man needs support if he doesn’t have any all ready I’ve lived in an abusive relationship I wouldn’t call it that myself because there is a lot to peoples behaviour and sounds to me like they both need positive support considering the older a person gets the more they become locked in their way of thinking it important to analyze what you are up against before you begin a task of this nature but it’s for your own good to begin with these messed up people somewhere down the line don’t need to be called names anymore but perhaps helped even if they don’t want it

Comments are closed.