The Ministry of Women's Injustice has applied the proven Domestic Violence propaganda strategy to the area of so-called "Sexual Violence." This propaganda strategy has the following components:

1. Get some Feminist activist(s) employed by taxpayers as a lecturer in the social sciences at a university to provide tear-jerking propaganda from alleged female victims of alleged male crimes;
2. Collect a group of anti-male organisations (carefully excluding pro-male individuals and organisations) to draw up their wish-list for persecuting men;
3. Make this group the "official" partners of the Ministry of Women's Injustice in drawing up proposed legislation;
4. Go through the motions of calling for publc submissions;
5. Ignore submissions which run counter to the pre-determined anti-male agenda.

This scenario is particularly easy to implement, now that the Minister of Women's Injustice and Women's Police is the Man-hating Dental Nurse -- Annette King.

The problem with having women in jobs is that they are addicted to lies and bad faith, and they think that ideas are a matter of fashion, so that all they have to do is to find the correct fashion-house and follow its fashions. I remember ringing Annette King's secretary (for criminal policing matters) about some other form of anti-male discrimination and being fed the argument that it was OK because some other countries were doing it! This (Ministry of Justice) discussion-paper (on changing the law) also refers to a (very small) group of other countries, in an attempt to make man-hating seem normal.

In addition, many women in the Ministry of Women's Injustice seem to be Lesbians, so they are psycho-sexually unable to conceive of men having any rights or interests.

All these aspects of contemporary New Zealand women are evident in the seriously Femi-Fascist drivel emanating from the Ministry of Women's Injustice entitled "Improvements to Sexual Violence Legislation in New Zealand."

It is gross bad faith to pretend that there is something so simple as "improvements" to Sexual Violence legislation. That is mere Lesbian, man-hating spin, which concentrates (as always) on increasing women's privileges and oppressing men. It is clear that the Ministry of Women's Injustice plans to improve conviction rates at the expense of a weakening of accused people's right to a fair trial.

Female bad faith at the policy level mirrors female lies at the individual level.

1. Kanin found that 41% of rape allegations in one US town were admitted to have been false (Kanin, Eugene (1994): "False Rape Allegations", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.23, No. 1.)
2. A Television One "Sunday" programme (rescreened on the morning of 21 September 2008) told the story of Tanya Head, who became the best-known "survivor" of the 9/11 tragedy, but it was later revealed that she had made up the entire story! A real female survivor said:

   "I knew immediately why she would do it -- for the notoriety and the attention."

   As a man, I did not immediately know why someone would do something like that. But a woman would immediately know that, because that sort of behaviour makes sense to women. In fact, the main reason that Feminist propaganda is so hard to combat is that it is all just fiction, fantasy and lies of an intrinsically female kind. Women desperately want it to be true, and they don't really care if it is actually false. Women are irrational, untruthful, and should be sent back to the kitchen pronto!!

 

Comments on the Substantive Issues for the Ministry of Women's Injustice to Ignore

1. Only one party to sex is in legal jeopardy -- there should be legal penalties also for the passive party if they do not make their intentions clear.
2. What we are talking about here is the thin line between normal sex and a heinous crime. The Ministry of Women's Justice is mis-framing the issue in a one-sided manner. "Sexual Violence" is an inappropriate term for a mere misunderstanding as to willingness;
3. There are two totally separate issues: Forced Stranger Sex and Forced Acquaintance Sex (including sex within marriage). They should be totally separate in the Crimes Act -- in fact, Forced Acquantance Sex (including sex within marriage) should be decriminalised, unless the passive party is forced by law to make their wishes clear;
4. People like me were left out of the initial consultation process by the NGO, and Feminist academic activists are mis-labelled "experts", so what we have here is a predetermination of the outcome via sham "consultation";
5. People who use the word "myth" about attitudes to such issues should have to prove that the so-called "myth" are untrue. If it is claimed that women never say "No" and mean "Yes", then to say "No" and mean "Yes" should be criminalised (because it could result in another person being convicted of sexual assault). If the Feminists are right in claiming that that women never say "No" and mean "Yes", no one would ever have to be prosecuted for it. (See Appendix);
6. If women want to keep getting away with ambiguous and passive behaviour, then dating and marriage will have to be legally taken as implicit contracts for sex.

NB. I myself have been the victim of two similar instances of sexual assault by different women within a short time of each other. I complained to the Police, but they said they were too busy and that the events happened too long ago (even though it was only a couple of years ago and I had a witness to one of the incidents.) I have also been the victim of separate sexual assaults by three other women that I did not report to the Police. I have also been assaulted by women.

 

APPENDIX

In my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism , I recount the following experience:

" A surprising thing happened to me while working on this book: While I was attending a course for teachers, several Feminists handed me the best disproof of their position on rape I could ever hope to find!1 In fact, this group (mainly women) is so determinedly Feminist (and left-wing, generally) that I almost had to pinch myself. Here's what happened.

One topic covered during the one-day course was Brain Sex, based on the book of the same name. After talking about a few of the differences between male and female psychology mentioned in that book, the Facilitator, addressing the women in the audience, said something like: "You know what it's like when you tell your husband not to buy you a present for your birthday - and he doesn't?"

There was a chorus of patronising agreement from the mainly-female audience. Men are just supposed to know they really do need to buy a gift. So I jumped at the opportunity to say, "That's just like rape. The woman says 'No,' and the man's wrong whatever happens."

There was a surprised, but almost unanimous retort of "No!" from this same audience. (I might have added that a man could end up in jail for making one choice in such situations, or lose his marriage if he makes the other choice.)

So, whether a woman says no and means yes in one situation, but says no and means no in another, men are just supposed to magically, telepathically intuit the correct meaning and act accordingly? Only those who benefit from the grant of such whimsy could say this makes sense.

This incident illustrates a number of points: One is that the Feminist insistence a woman always means "No" when she says "No" is a lie, as Camille Paglia, though she calls herself a Feminist, has noted."

 

Last Update: 14 December 2008