One comment (to which I responded) mentioned that the bias against men in family court leads to a power-imbalance during the marriage.
One could say the same for workplace "harassment" laws, or any situation where women interact with men. Men know they are vulnerable to false accusations so give in to women's demands in the short term, but are learning to defend themselves in the long term.
It started with MGTOW, but the tide is turning politically. It has turned in the US.
IMO in Australia, the biggest threat to men ever getting anywhere is not the feminists, and it's not even the simps - it's the average Aussie bloke and his aversion to politics, politicians, and "causes" - even after he's been done over in divorce, and know his sons face the same danger. For example, in relation to Dutton's recent comments I've seen men in these groups saying that "Dutton will say anything for a vote". Saying, of politicians, "They are all the same" is a terrible political strategy, but one which is deeply embedded in Australian men.
Peter Dutton is casting around for support ,he wants the working man’s vote and is prepared to say the right things , up to a point. This is just what Scott Morrison did prior to his election win , remember he promised inquiries into the Family Court ,rubbed shoulders with the working men in the pubs and clubs, for the cameras . It seems to have worked ,he won but then failed to deliver and lost to Albenese . Is Dutton on a similar path , will history repeat?.
You are right about the apathy of Aussie men , who would rather do anything than get involved in politics, but this might be changing , the mens rights groups are the new training grounds .
It’s good to see a Magistrate interpret the bad Qld DV laws with commonsense. As with new legislation it is always vague & now the Magistrate has set a precedent where he has applied exceptional circumstances which will be definitely challenged by the Feminists.
Understand where you are coming from Ross but the issue for me is that the legislation is available to any woman at any time and most likely to be used when they are angry and/or mentally unwell. If a woman catches her husband cheating, she can use the law as a strategy to be financially rewarded and deliver retribution in the form of removing access to children. If a man catches his wife cheating, his best strategy might just be to walk away so she doesn’t use this law. This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Thanks for the chat Stephen. Nice to know I have a brother in arms in the fight against feminism. It just astounds me how people wilfully ignore the topic.
Thanks Stephen and agree with your comments however I tend to think that there is only 10% or so of the male population and maybe 50% plus of the female population that really understand the legal power women have in relationships. Most do not follow thought leaders like Bettina and Janice Fiamengo. Most have not directly felt that power wielded against them or a family member/friend. I believe this because I am somewhat treated as an outlier and conspiracy theorist by my extended family for trying to raise awareness. Funnily enough most of my extended family have sons whereas I have 2 daughters.
I agree that most men, and their families, get a nasty shock when a woman wields her power against a man. He’s still reeling from the shock of losing her, and is probably trying to “save” the relationship, at least for the kid’s sake, while she is methodically using the law to take everything she can.
Agree, now that you point it out (thanks!) that the percentages of men who know, before the event, is much less than the number of women.
I don’t even discuss these issues with my extended family. They are all dominated by professional women whose political conscience is based on the assumption that women are “oppressed”. Hubbies toe the line.
>> This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to
>> anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Well said!
That "anyone who understands" is 99% of the population. As soon as an argument escalates both know that She can throw a tantrum, threaten anything, be physically abusive, etc., but if He loses his cool in any way she now owns him, and can wipe him out - at a time of her choosing.
She only has to say that she "was afraid" in this incident. He doesn't even have the option of walking out until she calms down - that can be construed as "coercive control" or "domestic violence".
There are several videos describing this. In one, Jewell Drury went to a taxpayer funded "women's service" (no such for men, of course) and posed as a wife seeking a separation. The service coached her to find an incident in the past which could be construed as "dv" and then use it to get a violence order against him. They told her that by the time it came to court, even if it was unsuccessful, that she whould have gained strategic advantage to take the lot.
Bettina also has an interview with a former police officer who describes how, after calling the police to remove a good man from the house FOR NO JUST CAUSE, the woman will go to the lawyers to initiate separation. "They know" he says, that with the violence order they are all set up. "They" being every woman. You may be arguing with a nutcase - but she's no fool.
Yet, our taxpayer funded dv advertising and agencies, and simps like Albo, tell us that dv is about male "power and control".
The trouble for Women here is, if this new so called law is to be over exuberently used as a means by Police to interceed in domestic relationships for fear of poor outcomes, what actually may end up occuring is Men will be forced to use the legislation themselves in order to protect oneself from an abusive spouse instead of trying to manage an overly emotional person inhouse which is now an even more difficult task consideriing this new legislation. Therefore one may have to remain silent and make a complaint themselves in order to avoid the other party acting on hearsay or bias advice from lawyers who may have a vested interests in proceeding to hearing as who actually reads the legislation before going to Police? This could in fact have the opposite effect to that which it is intended and provide Men with protection from an abusive spouse should the same standard be applied being that the alledged offense is Criminal in nature and must be. This could lead to a lot of Women ending up with convictions which a Man wouldn't normally persue but is now forced to.
In theory, it should work as you describe, ie. men who would prefer to keep the police out of it having to seek a violence order as a defensive legal mechanism. Whether police would actually grant it is another matter. For a start, dv services are "trained" to regard a man reporting dv as the perpetrator.
Hi Steven. Thank you for your comment. To your point, possibly so but the law itself cannot show favor. If one's spouse is behaving aggresively or using coercive control to get their way then regardless of one's gender the legislative ammendment to the Crimes Act cannot and does not allow favour to one gender or ipso facto, would not be according to law. My point is that some Women will automatically assume that it does favor them and proceed based on this belief which is simply not true although the very groups that advocated for this legislative change to begin with will promulgate this concept in order to appear relevant. The Government has given these Groups what they believe they wanted but only within the scope the law allows which cannot show fear nor favor to one party as everyone is equal under the law. The danger this assumption may create, is that it requires Men to engage the law early instead of trying to manage an abusive spose inhouse. If one is exposed as being abusive via any complaint then one should suffer similar repercussions via the law. In the end the underlying objective is always more litigation at a cost but costs awarded to the Man should his complaint be upheld based on evidence of fact will have the reverse effect for a Woman in subseqent divorce proceedings. Yes it will not be common but it is possible should a Man understand the law. Equality is a double edged sword and some will learn the hard way that wolves seek a slice of one's estate regarless of how that is achieved. This is what we the people must learn, legislation is all about legal fees and one should not take this course of action lightly. Being that Women tend to run more on emotion and hearsay than logic, who does one think will consider this conundrum more given what one stands to loose? Time will tell.
Here is the thing about Power (over others), it is very difficult to find middle ground cus Power is all consuming. The Nature of Power is usually an 'all or nothing' scenario. That is to say, now that the Femo's have almost total power in the Fem-mocracy now called Australia, that is to say, Power over Education, Policy making, Law making, Justice system, Police +++, clawing Power back is way difficult as every area needs to be addressed. Total Victory belongs to the Femo machine, the gender war is over, only some mopping up left to do.
Men are sooo weak in the eyes of the Law now, its laughable. And as for respect of men, there is little. Women are laughing at us, and indeed men from other countries who did not allow the slippage to happen know our mistake. Australia internationally is known as a Femo stronghold and a place were men are humiliated daily all in the name of liberty.
For which man in Australia will come out from under a women's skirt to fight their own battles, committing economic and social suicide, for the sake of Men's rights? And in doing so make Mr Trump look like an Angel? Who ?
Fear and no care has gripped the men of Australia, Femos wait on every street corner to accuse us of being pedophiles, rapists, abusers, and more. Oh the Fear I can smell it.
The hierarchy of importance for most Australian women is, 1 The House, 2 themselves and children, 3 her job. 4 the dog and cat, 5 House, 6. Car. 7 her girl friends and associates. 8 Her soccer team mates. 9 other stuff. 10 husband, male partner.
Men handed the ' power of independence ' to women, and look at what happened? Before this, we were kings in our country, most women were depending on their men. So we handed the Baton over to women and continue to do it. See what men have done!
Can men ever make it back to the half way point or beyond under the political system as it stands? In your dreams . No way, it's likely to slide even further down hill.
Goodbye traditional Australia. The other New Australians, Muslims etc will take full advantage of your stupidity in maintaining our population and the fem-mocracy .
We continue to vote in female Polly's who clearly do not represent the men in their electorate. Why do we vote more in? Cus every man believes it's right to do so.
Haha, power to men will never return here. Oh , some small incremental adjustments maybe, that's it.
Universities in Australia have been left wing propaganda havens for decades .Marxist tactics , brainwash the young people and you can control a society. Many of the women at universities were not really suited to an academic or scientific career.
These were traditionally the working class girls who left school early and may have had a brief period of employment before marriage . To the radical feminists this was seen as exploitation by the dreaded “patriarchy” , so the girls were herded into universities by left wing governments , here they where easy prey to feminists anti -male indoctrination. They aim of the feminists was not to ensure the young women got a useful education , only to be feminist crusaders. They were given useless degrees in subjects which where not helpful to employment.
If I had money for every man I heard say after his divorce case, ' I gave her the house and car and walked away ' said with pride, I would have some money now. This is code for Caved in to Asset Rape.
If a woman claims to have been sexually assaulted and has done it before on several occasions then police should have the records and should decide not to charge the accused. This is what should happen , but feminist pressure of “zero tolerance” for sexual assault has forced police to go ahead with cases which in past years would have been dropped.
Then it would be irrelevant that such information was withheld from a jury.
This is the issue , political pressure put on police forces to give one section of the community an advantage , police forces should be protected from political interference , there’s work needed there too it seems , what a mess Australia’s justice system is in, who allowed it to get so bad?
Sexual history is history. It has bearing on who a person is. We disclose our race, gender, married status, age, political affiliation, voting record, if we're mothers or fathers and our employment. It's tells who we are. Which is why you get to confront your accuser. So you can say who they are. In a sexual assault case, I'm to believe there isn't a difference between a virgin and a prostitute. The facts of a case are relevant to a case. If we can ignore sexual history of women and say it's not relevant, can we say the past rapes of a rapist are relevant? Isn't that the rapist's past sexual history? It isn't relevant?
If 58% of interpersonal violence is bi-directional and 14% was uni-dimensional male to female? Wouldn't that make 28% uni-demensional female to male? Or maybe these numbers aren't heterosexual only?
I see that Alistair P D Bain has responded to you but I can assure you that as a gay man I've encountered aggressive Lesbians (December 2024 was the last time) and an ex female, straight, psychotherapist (I think it was in 2003, Sydney) once told me that 'she had a few lesbian patients who were notably abusive in their same sex partnerships'. I was shocked about this.
Nothing wrong with making provocative statements , it’s a good way of sparking debate on a subject .and the subject of the bias against men in our courts is a subject which should be discussed ,if only more politicians had the courage.
The way I read this is that the law preventing the tendering of the fabrication history relates to it in a court of law. What prevents the information being released to the media?
Well, the complainant can't be named, obviously, nor any details published which could identify her. But the other problem is the media isn't interested.
Yes, madness indeed. Of course the root of the 'Mens No Rights' issue is snake belly men. Our male leaders are afraid of the Femos in parliament . The male pollys are in the grip of FEAR in the same way the fear their mothers wooden spoon when they were toddlers. Oh yes, the Men leading us have no spines, not willing to push back and in fear of the Femo media hence their jobs. Shame on them.
What a hole men have dug for themselves. Men handed over their power so they can look like nice men and then when the power bites them back hard, they cowher down like weak puppy dogs. Shame on our male pollys for not representing 50% of the electorate, being male voters.
First rule of power, if you have it, hang onto it, and men caved in easily.
Our current leaders are no different, keep the Femos happy at all costs is their position. If Aussie men like strong independent bossy women, then you got what you asked for.
To lead Australia, no testicular connection required for this job, this is indeed preferred. No room for real political push back in AU, .
What brave government will rewrite these nasty anti men laws? What brave leader will get political support to change or over turn these laws? Who has got the testies to do that?
Sorry folks, no Polly's in AU that I can see.
Oh and the law makers elected are the will of the people, so what does that tell you about Aussies and our elected reps?
“When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles. When I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
Agreed fully, we now live in a Fem-mocracy, with the femo machine gripping firmly on the Education system , Media, law makers, female Polly's and more.
Aussie was a walk over for the well organised Femo converters, who systematically converted our institutions, public mind set, men , children, society generally. Wow, if I wasn't a victim of this, I would salute the Social Engineering Masterminds.
Just who are these Mastermind people behind the scenes? People need a list of there names to expose them publically. Publish here please.
Yes, our country is full of wimps. But also politicians who want to stay in power and they know if they show any sign of taking on the feminists, the mob will go after them and make sure they lose their seats. With most of the mainstream media utterly captured, it is very easy for these people to have an influence far beyond their numbers.
The only MSM willing to challenge the feminists is SkyNews, with people like Chris Kenny, but even then they don’t seem overly concerned , while their sponsors are pro feminist they have to be careful no doubt.
Corporate Australia panders to feminists this is obvious now , they push for DEI in everything , many CEO’s are women , even mining companies.
I met a female politician (29 years old) here in Switzerland recently and this is from her web page (only part) and translated from German:
FEMINIST
Protection from violence: No one in Bern should be afraid - neither on the way home, at work, or in their own four walls. Effective measures are needed against sexual violence in public spaces and against domestic violence.
Gender budgeting: Taking gender-specific aspects into account in municipal spending ensures a fair distribution of resources. This promotes equal opportunities and strengthens a feminist city.
Ensuring high-quality external childcare: Childcare must be part of the public service. High-quality and affordable daycare places enable everyone to access this basic care. This requires appropriate working conditions for employees in daycare centres and day schools.
Once upon a time I would have thought this was great but now I ask: what does it actually mean where does the money actually come from to pay for your ideas to happen?
What I find interesting to observe is how subtle it is happening and yet if one is a little bit awake then one can see that it is, as you say, a brutal intrusion in our lives based on someones else's principles that is not necessarily ours.
I find it interesting to read: This promotes equal opportunities and strengthens a feminist city. The German is: "Dadurch wird Chancengleichheit gefördert und eine feministische Stadt gestärkt" When i translate 'gestärkt' alone it can be: strengthened, invigorated, undergirded...
Not a mention of Man.. and yet I guess if I lived in this city I'm meant to just blindly accept all this.. I'm blown away actually... and YET.. elsewhere she says:
Every person should be able to participate in society according to their needs and abilities - regardless of gender, sexual orientation, social background, passport or skin color, psychological or physical abilities. This is what I am committed to as a city councilor.
But how can I effectively participate in Her society when I'm already excluded because of my gender..
it is astounding to say the least..
Men need to start protecting themselves and Justice is a good place to start...
Edit: I wanted to add that, maybe totally naive, how can a person be so one sided... I get it,, but taxpayers money would pay for her ideas.. that includes.. we know.. men... so interesting...
This is a welcome and much needed development to take on the madness of suffocating identity politics. Improving the experience of false complainants has to be the emptiest of motivations, and nothing to do with the betterment of society or the safety of its citizens. The idiot elite need to be challenged at every turn. This is a good way to do it.
Attorney General Dreyfus’ goal of “improving the experience of victims of sexual violence in the justice system.”... ONE PAYMENT AT A TIME! $2.4 million under a settlement with Brittany Higgins that included $1.48 million for lost earning capacity, a formerly confidential deed released by the Federal Court reveals.
The payout to Higgins was an outrageous waste of taxpayers money and will encourage women to lie about rape , for financial gain obviously. But we never heard Dutton or anyone from the opposition condemning this payment , the feminists control Canberra and politicians are to afraid to rock the boat.
One comment (to which I responded) mentioned that the bias against men in family court leads to a power-imbalance during the marriage.
One could say the same for workplace "harassment" laws, or any situation where women interact with men. Men know they are vulnerable to false accusations so give in to women's demands in the short term, but are learning to defend themselves in the long term.
It started with MGTOW, but the tide is turning politically. It has turned in the US.
IMO in Australia, the biggest threat to men ever getting anywhere is not the feminists, and it's not even the simps - it's the average Aussie bloke and his aversion to politics, politicians, and "causes" - even after he's been done over in divorce, and know his sons face the same danger. For example, in relation to Dutton's recent comments I've seen men in these groups saying that "Dutton will say anything for a vote". Saying, of politicians, "They are all the same" is a terrible political strategy, but one which is deeply embedded in Australian men.
Peter Dutton is casting around for support ,he wants the working man’s vote and is prepared to say the right things , up to a point. This is just what Scott Morrison did prior to his election win , remember he promised inquiries into the Family Court ,rubbed shoulders with the working men in the pubs and clubs, for the cameras . It seems to have worked ,he won but then failed to deliver and lost to Albenese . Is Dutton on a similar path , will history repeat?.
You are right about the apathy of Aussie men , who would rather do anything than get involved in politics, but this might be changing , the mens rights groups are the new training grounds .
It’s good to see a Magistrate interpret the bad Qld DV laws with commonsense. As with new legislation it is always vague & now the Magistrate has set a precedent where he has applied exceptional circumstances which will be definitely challenged by the Feminists.
Understand where you are coming from Ross but the issue for me is that the legislation is available to any woman at any time and most likely to be used when they are angry and/or mentally unwell. If a woman catches her husband cheating, she can use the law as a strategy to be financially rewarded and deliver retribution in the form of removing access to children. If a man catches his wife cheating, his best strategy might just be to walk away so she doesn’t use this law. This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Thanks for the chat Stephen. Nice to know I have a brother in arms in the fight against feminism. It just astounds me how people wilfully ignore the topic.
Thanks Stephen and agree with your comments however I tend to think that there is only 10% or so of the male population and maybe 50% plus of the female population that really understand the legal power women have in relationships. Most do not follow thought leaders like Bettina and Janice Fiamengo. Most have not directly felt that power wielded against them or a family member/friend. I believe this because I am somewhat treated as an outlier and conspiracy theorist by my extended family for trying to raise awareness. Funnily enough most of my extended family have sons whereas I have 2 daughters.
Thanks for the informative and interesting reply!
I agree that most men, and their families, get a nasty shock when a woman wields her power against a man. He’s still reeling from the shock of losing her, and is probably trying to “save” the relationship, at least for the kid’s sake, while she is methodically using the law to take everything she can.
Agree, now that you point it out (thanks!) that the percentages of men who know, before the event, is much less than the number of women.
I don’t even discuss these issues with my extended family. They are all dominated by professional women whose political conscience is based on the assumption that women are “oppressed”. Hubbies toe the line.
>> This has an enormous impact on the power balance of all relationships to
>> anyone who understands the legal consequences à woman can bring.
Well said!
That "anyone who understands" is 99% of the population. As soon as an argument escalates both know that She can throw a tantrum, threaten anything, be physically abusive, etc., but if He loses his cool in any way she now owns him, and can wipe him out - at a time of her choosing.
She only has to say that she "was afraid" in this incident. He doesn't even have the option of walking out until she calms down - that can be construed as "coercive control" or "domestic violence".
There are several videos describing this. In one, Jewell Drury went to a taxpayer funded "women's service" (no such for men, of course) and posed as a wife seeking a separation. The service coached her to find an incident in the past which could be construed as "dv" and then use it to get a violence order against him. They told her that by the time it came to court, even if it was unsuccessful, that she whould have gained strategic advantage to take the lot.
Bettina also has an interview with a former police officer who describes how, after calling the police to remove a good man from the house FOR NO JUST CAUSE, the woman will go to the lawyers to initiate separation. "They know" he says, that with the violence order they are all set up. "They" being every woman. You may be arguing with a nutcase - but she's no fool.
Yet, our taxpayer funded dv advertising and agencies, and simps like Albo, tell us that dv is about male "power and control".
The trouble for Women here is, if this new so called law is to be over exuberently used as a means by Police to interceed in domestic relationships for fear of poor outcomes, what actually may end up occuring is Men will be forced to use the legislation themselves in order to protect oneself from an abusive spouse instead of trying to manage an overly emotional person inhouse which is now an even more difficult task consideriing this new legislation. Therefore one may have to remain silent and make a complaint themselves in order to avoid the other party acting on hearsay or bias advice from lawyers who may have a vested interests in proceeding to hearing as who actually reads the legislation before going to Police? This could in fact have the opposite effect to that which it is intended and provide Men with protection from an abusive spouse should the same standard be applied being that the alledged offense is Criminal in nature and must be. This could lead to a lot of Women ending up with convictions which a Man wouldn't normally persue but is now forced to.
In theory, it should work as you describe, ie. men who would prefer to keep the police out of it having to seek a violence order as a defensive legal mechanism. Whether police would actually grant it is another matter. For a start, dv services are "trained" to regard a man reporting dv as the perpetrator.
Watch this space!
Hi Steven. Thank you for your comment. To your point, possibly so but the law itself cannot show favor. If one's spouse is behaving aggresively or using coercive control to get their way then regardless of one's gender the legislative ammendment to the Crimes Act cannot and does not allow favour to one gender or ipso facto, would not be according to law. My point is that some Women will automatically assume that it does favor them and proceed based on this belief which is simply not true although the very groups that advocated for this legislative change to begin with will promulgate this concept in order to appear relevant. The Government has given these Groups what they believe they wanted but only within the scope the law allows which cannot show fear nor favor to one party as everyone is equal under the law. The danger this assumption may create, is that it requires Men to engage the law early instead of trying to manage an abusive spose inhouse. If one is exposed as being abusive via any complaint then one should suffer similar repercussions via the law. In the end the underlying objective is always more litigation at a cost but costs awarded to the Man should his complaint be upheld based on evidence of fact will have the reverse effect for a Woman in subseqent divorce proceedings. Yes it will not be common but it is possible should a Man understand the law. Equality is a double edged sword and some will learn the hard way that wolves seek a slice of one's estate regarless of how that is achieved. This is what we the people must learn, legislation is all about legal fees and one should not take this course of action lightly. Being that Women tend to run more on emotion and hearsay than logic, who does one think will consider this conundrum more given what one stands to loose? Time will tell.
Two things always return, night and the ALP. How many terms will Dutton need to help sort this mess out.
Here is the thing about Power (over others), it is very difficult to find middle ground cus Power is all consuming. The Nature of Power is usually an 'all or nothing' scenario. That is to say, now that the Femo's have almost total power in the Fem-mocracy now called Australia, that is to say, Power over Education, Policy making, Law making, Justice system, Police +++, clawing Power back is way difficult as every area needs to be addressed. Total Victory belongs to the Femo machine, the gender war is over, only some mopping up left to do.
Men are sooo weak in the eyes of the Law now, its laughable. And as for respect of men, there is little. Women are laughing at us, and indeed men from other countries who did not allow the slippage to happen know our mistake. Australia internationally is known as a Femo stronghold and a place were men are humiliated daily all in the name of liberty.
For which man in Australia will come out from under a women's skirt to fight their own battles, committing economic and social suicide, for the sake of Men's rights? And in doing so make Mr Trump look like an Angel? Who ?
Fear and no care has gripped the men of Australia, Femos wait on every street corner to accuse us of being pedophiles, rapists, abusers, and more. Oh the Fear I can smell it.
The hierarchy of importance for most Australian women is, 1 The House, 2 themselves and children, 3 her job. 4 the dog and cat, 5 House, 6. Car. 7 her girl friends and associates. 8 Her soccer team mates. 9 other stuff. 10 husband, male partner.
Men handed the ' power of independence ' to women, and look at what happened? Before this, we were kings in our country, most women were depending on their men. So we handed the Baton over to women and continue to do it. See what men have done!
Can men ever make it back to the half way point or beyond under the political system as it stands? In your dreams . No way, it's likely to slide even further down hill.
Goodbye traditional Australia. The other New Australians, Muslims etc will take full advantage of your stupidity in maintaining our population and the fem-mocracy .
We continue to vote in female Polly's who clearly do not represent the men in their electorate. Why do we vote more in? Cus every man believes it's right to do so.
Haha, power to men will never return here. Oh , some small incremental adjustments maybe, that's it.
Blame yourselves, men have handed it over gladly.
Women's Studies is a major University course in Australia. Code for Man Hating Femo Studies, needs to be banned in all Universities in Australia.
Is it any wonder foreign governments warn their parents against sending their students to Australia for Education. They go home Femos.
It's no wonder men are in this mess.
Universities in Australia have been left wing propaganda havens for decades .Marxist tactics , brainwash the young people and you can control a society. Many of the women at universities were not really suited to an academic or scientific career.
These were traditionally the working class girls who left school early and may have had a brief period of employment before marriage . To the radical feminists this was seen as exploitation by the dreaded “patriarchy” , so the girls were herded into universities by left wing governments , here they where easy prey to feminists anti -male indoctrination. They aim of the feminists was not to ensure the young women got a useful education , only to be feminist crusaders. They were given useless degrees in subjects which where not helpful to employment.
If I had money for every man I heard say after his divorce case, ' I gave her the house and car and walked away ' said with pride, I would have some money now. This is code for Caved in to Asset Rape.
Asset Rape.. now there is a new term to be used...
If a woman claims to have been sexually assaulted and has done it before on several occasions then police should have the records and should decide not to charge the accused. This is what should happen , but feminist pressure of “zero tolerance” for sexual assault has forced police to go ahead with cases which in past years would have been dropped.
Then it would be irrelevant that such information was withheld from a jury.
This is the issue , political pressure put on police forces to give one section of the community an advantage , police forces should be protected from political interference , there’s work needed there too it seems , what a mess Australia’s justice system is in, who allowed it to get so bad?
Sexual history is history. It has bearing on who a person is. We disclose our race, gender, married status, age, political affiliation, voting record, if we're mothers or fathers and our employment. It's tells who we are. Which is why you get to confront your accuser. So you can say who they are. In a sexual assault case, I'm to believe there isn't a difference between a virgin and a prostitute. The facts of a case are relevant to a case. If we can ignore sexual history of women and say it's not relevant, can we say the past rapes of a rapist are relevant? Isn't that the rapist's past sexual history? It isn't relevant?
If 58% of interpersonal violence is bi-directional and 14% was uni-dimensional male to female? Wouldn't that make 28% uni-demensional female to male? Or maybe these numbers aren't heterosexual only?
I see that Alistair P D Bain has responded to you but I can assure you that as a gay man I've encountered aggressive Lesbians (December 2024 was the last time) and an ex female, straight, psychotherapist (I think it was in 2003, Sydney) once told me that 'she had a few lesbian patients who were notably abusive in their same sex partnerships'. I was shocked about this.
So a good question Matthew..
The trouble with Arndt is she makes provocative statements, uses generalises and tosses around figures, but never provides evidence. Think about that.
Nothing wrong with making provocative statements , it’s a good way of sparking debate on a subject .and the subject of the bias against men in our courts is a subject which should be discussed ,if only more politicians had the courage.
Alistair, disagree, Bettina always provides evidence.
The way I read this is that the law preventing the tendering of the fabrication history relates to it in a court of law. What prevents the information being released to the media?
Well, the complainant can't be named, obviously, nor any details published which could identify her. But the other problem is the media isn't interested.
Yes, madness indeed. Of course the root of the 'Mens No Rights' issue is snake belly men. Our male leaders are afraid of the Femos in parliament . The male pollys are in the grip of FEAR in the same way the fear their mothers wooden spoon when they were toddlers. Oh yes, the Men leading us have no spines, not willing to push back and in fear of the Femo media hence their jobs. Shame on them.
What a hole men have dug for themselves. Men handed over their power so they can look like nice men and then when the power bites them back hard, they cowher down like weak puppy dogs. Shame on our male pollys for not representing 50% of the electorate, being male voters.
First rule of power, if you have it, hang onto it, and men caved in easily.
Our current leaders are no different, keep the Femos happy at all costs is their position. If Aussie men like strong independent bossy women, then you got what you asked for.
To lead Australia, no testicular connection required for this job, this is indeed preferred. No room for real political push back in AU, .
What brave government will rewrite these nasty anti men laws? What brave leader will get political support to change or over turn these laws? Who has got the testies to do that?
Sorry folks, no Polly's in AU that I can see.
Oh and the law makers elected are the will of the people, so what does that tell you about Aussies and our elected reps?
“When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles. When I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
- Children of Dune, Frank Herbert
Agreed fully, we now live in a Fem-mocracy, with the femo machine gripping firmly on the Education system , Media, law makers, female Polly's and more.
Aussie was a walk over for the well organised Femo converters, who systematically converted our institutions, public mind set, men , children, society generally. Wow, if I wasn't a victim of this, I would salute the Social Engineering Masterminds.
Just who are these Mastermind people behind the scenes? People need a list of there names to expose them publically. Publish here please.
Yes, our country is full of wimps. But also politicians who want to stay in power and they know if they show any sign of taking on the feminists, the mob will go after them and make sure they lose their seats. With most of the mainstream media utterly captured, it is very easy for these people to have an influence far beyond their numbers.
The only MSM willing to challenge the feminists is SkyNews, with people like Chris Kenny, but even then they don’t seem overly concerned , while their sponsors are pro feminist they have to be careful no doubt.
Corporate Australia panders to feminists this is obvious now , they push for DEI in everything , many CEO’s are women , even mining companies.
I met a female politician (29 years old) here in Switzerland recently and this is from her web page (only part) and translated from German:
FEMINIST
Protection from violence: No one in Bern should be afraid - neither on the way home, at work, or in their own four walls. Effective measures are needed against sexual violence in public spaces and against domestic violence.
Gender budgeting: Taking gender-specific aspects into account in municipal spending ensures a fair distribution of resources. This promotes equal opportunities and strengthens a feminist city.
Ensuring high-quality external childcare: Childcare must be part of the public service. High-quality and affordable daycare places enable everyone to access this basic care. This requires appropriate working conditions for employees in daycare centres and day schools.
====================================================
Once upon a time I would have thought this was great but now I ask: what does it actually mean where does the money actually come from to pay for your ideas to happen?
Switzerland is copying Sweden , a feminist hell on earth , the “nanny state “ government interference in all aspects of citizens lives.
What I find interesting to observe is how subtle it is happening and yet if one is a little bit awake then one can see that it is, as you say, a brutal intrusion in our lives based on someones else's principles that is not necessarily ours.
I find it interesting to read: This promotes equal opportunities and strengthens a feminist city. The German is: "Dadurch wird Chancengleichheit gefördert und eine feministische Stadt gestärkt" When i translate 'gestärkt' alone it can be: strengthened, invigorated, undergirded...
Not a mention of Man.. and yet I guess if I lived in this city I'm meant to just blindly accept all this.. I'm blown away actually... and YET.. elsewhere she says:
Every person should be able to participate in society according to their needs and abilities - regardless of gender, sexual orientation, social background, passport or skin color, psychological or physical abilities. This is what I am committed to as a city councilor.
But how can I effectively participate in Her society when I'm already excluded because of my gender..
it is astounding to say the least..
Men need to start protecting themselves and Justice is a good place to start...
Edit: I wanted to add that, maybe totally naive, how can a person be so one sided... I get it,, but taxpayers money would pay for her ideas.. that includes.. we know.. men... so interesting...
This is a welcome and much needed development to take on the madness of suffocating identity politics. Improving the experience of false complainants has to be the emptiest of motivations, and nothing to do with the betterment of society or the safety of its citizens. The idiot elite need to be challenged at every turn. This is a good way to do it.
Attorney General Dreyfus’ goal of “improving the experience of victims of sexual violence in the justice system.”... ONE PAYMENT AT A TIME! $2.4 million under a settlement with Brittany Higgins that included $1.48 million for lost earning capacity, a formerly confidential deed released by the Federal Court reveals.
The payout to Higgins was an outrageous waste of taxpayers money and will encourage women to lie about rape , for financial gain obviously. But we never heard Dutton or anyone from the opposition condemning this payment , the feminists control Canberra and politicians are to afraid to rock the boat.