Keen to hear more about the Sydney Conference. Also interested to hear from anyone considering suing the Queensland Government due to being unjustifiably penalised via various state departments.
Apologies for posting off-topic but does anyone know where I can find the scientific studies that show that both men and women have less empathy for men than for women? When I google it I get flooded with articles about men HAVING less empathy but cannot find anything but vague references to men RECEIVING less empathy.
Here in New Zealand, we have a law that deals with Male vs Female violence exclusively. It's called Male Assaults Female. The starting point for sentence is DOUBLE that of Common Assault. But there's a further complication. When making an Official Information Act request for numbers with regard to females assaulting males, your application is turned down. The following excuse is used .... females assaulting males is just regular common assault and the instances are just lumped in with every other type of common assault. BUT, if you make an OIA request asking how many prosecutions there are for Male Assaults Female, the numbers are readily available. Naturally organizations like Women's Refuge crow about how many male assaults female charges there are and can happily point to NO numbers for females assaulting males. Like most countries, DV numbers only reflect male violence and any DV instances when women are the perpetrators, their violence is never counted as DV.
Yes Kiwis are far too complacent. However it is also crawling with lawyers. If someone had the money, plenty of lawyers would be happy to argue the finer points of law. I think the real issue is that they only use that law against someone who could not hope to appeal it on the basis of the law itself being illegal. The NZ Bill of Rights Act is routinely contravened by other legislation, almost as soon as it was passed. I have heard this from NZ law makers themselves. But that law is no doubt applied very deviously. The vast majority of men would have no hope of having the resources to appeal it. In any case, when prosecutors apply that charge, no doubt it also means they are tossed out of their own home, probably have their income seriously impacted, placed under extreme stress and generally placed in a position where they have few resources to fight the charge.
However, every now and then they screw up and charge someone like a lawyer with one of these laws and that lawyer suddenly becomes motivated to address the unethical/illegal nature of that law.
But being labelled as “sexist “ should be seen as a badge of honour , along with “racist” or any other slur on one’s character.
“ I’m sexist and proud “ that’s what men should be saying , to take a leaf from the homosexuals book. Men must realise the feminists play dirty , the gloves are off , the fight is in the gutter already , so what does it matter what is said .
After all ,in a true democracy a person is allowed to have sexist or racist or homophobic views and to express these views whenever they want, it’s called freedom of speech .
I agree with your sentiment. However I would not say “ I’m sexist and proud “. I would go straight to the core of it and point out how sexist the law is and how hypocritical and Orwellien it is to slur the victim of the systemic sexism with that double speak in order to cancel them. How very North Korean of them.
Zali is right ,the courts are more about theatre than getting to the truth. The “players” lawyers ,judges etc. have the usual big egos of performers and stars ,they love an audience and the drama of the courtroom, truth and justice are only secondary in importance .
"[C]omplainants routinely referred to as 'victims'" is something I've been railing about for years. When a judge refers to a complainant as a 'victim' it should be grounds for a mistrial and a disciplinary action should be taken against that judge. It assumes that the violation occurred. Why even have a trial?
I’m fascinated by the way feminists reject age-old legal principles, in particular the right to confront one’s accusers, and the presumption of innocence, in cases where women accuse men of crimes against them.
The corruption of state institutions, such as the courts by feminists will at some not very distant time come back to bite feminists and their simp toadies. That’ll be amusing.
Some of the behaviour of the judiciary in australia lately makes me wonder if they were appointed to a lifetime position by some trump type (only left wing) who has the power to fire them at will.
Always pleased to see you fighting the good fight. It is not often that those who manage other people's lives with prejudice are called to account for the bias built into what they do.
And here in Melbourne we have a mainstream media outlet with an article about women complaining that men won't date them. Spoiler alert: it's all men's fault.
An article like that should have follow on discussions such as the effect on future generations,
The birth rate is falling fast as it is , anything which inhibits young men and women getting together will have the obvious effect , less marriages , less births , a falling population.
Australia is in this position now and depends on immigration to maintain its population level.
This is a risky thing to do, much better to breed your own people and the catch cry from the early 20th century of “ populate or perish” now rings true.
The great Stephen Baskerville has just released his latest book, Who Lost America: why the US went communist and what to do about it.
Naturally the feminist welfare state is at the heart of things. What struck me were a couple of things he said. Namely that these feminist courts and now "career-driven conviction mills". The phrase "Judicial chicanery" got a few runs but the most impelling was that "In most cases it is the judicial apparatchiks, much more than those who they prosecute, who belong behind bars."
I think this is a great point and that we need to go on the offense and start campaigning that any legislator or magistrate/judge/policeman who indulges in the prosecution of "gender crimes" ought to be jailed. They are obviously wicked, Unconstitutional and of course, due process fiascos.
678 The Longer Term Consequences of Masculism on Women (link) Part 1 (YouTubevideo) (Mindsvideo) (BitChutevideo) (Odyseevideo) (MGTOWtvvideo) (Xvideo) Part 2 (YouTubevideo) (Mindsvideo) (BitChutevideo) (Odyseevideo) (MGTOWtvvideo) (Xvideo)
(your software does not pick up links) so here is one -
Descr : This flyer paints a picture of what life will be like for women after a decade or two in the future of masculism, living in a world where masculist ideas are as widely known as feminist ideas, where there has been enough time for the political consequences of masculism to have fully played out.
Another great article and a cause well worth fighting for. I won't be in Sydney but I support you 100% and will watch anything I can on the live stream.
Reminder please: Where & When?
Keen to hear more about the Sydney Conference. Also interested to hear from anyone considering suing the Queensland Government due to being unjustifiably penalised via various state departments.
Apologies for posting off-topic but does anyone know where I can find the scientific studies that show that both men and women have less empathy for men than for women? When I google it I get flooded with articles about men HAVING less empathy but cannot find anything but vague references to men RECEIVING less empathy.
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/227-1-824-1-10-20161225%20(1).pdf
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/227-1-824-1-10-20161225%20(1).pdf
If you give the the title of the publication I can probably google up an online version
thanks for trying but unfortunately that pdf didn't upload - it just published an address on your computer's C drive
It's also saving the women.
I feel for the younger females that cannot find males to marry them because of the behaviour of the women that went before them.
We need to sort this out for the benefit of women and men.
Is the domestic violence issue magnified and manipulated to exclude male victims and advance unfair judicial bias against innocent men?
Here in New Zealand, we have a law that deals with Male vs Female violence exclusively. It's called Male Assaults Female. The starting point for sentence is DOUBLE that of Common Assault. But there's a further complication. When making an Official Information Act request for numbers with regard to females assaulting males, your application is turned down. The following excuse is used .... females assaulting males is just regular common assault and the instances are just lumped in with every other type of common assault. BUT, if you make an OIA request asking how many prosecutions there are for Male Assaults Female, the numbers are readily available. Naturally organizations like Women's Refuge crow about how many male assaults female charges there are and can happily point to NO numbers for females assaulting males. Like most countries, DV numbers only reflect male violence and any DV instances when women are the perpetrators, their violence is never counted as DV.
Has anyone appealed that Act as being unlawful? You would think it directly contravenes the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
Kiwis are far too complacent. And besides, if you challenge a law that is sexist, YOU will immediately be labelled as sexist.
Yes Kiwis are far too complacent. However it is also crawling with lawyers. If someone had the money, plenty of lawyers would be happy to argue the finer points of law. I think the real issue is that they only use that law against someone who could not hope to appeal it on the basis of the law itself being illegal. The NZ Bill of Rights Act is routinely contravened by other legislation, almost as soon as it was passed. I have heard this from NZ law makers themselves. But that law is no doubt applied very deviously. The vast majority of men would have no hope of having the resources to appeal it. In any case, when prosecutors apply that charge, no doubt it also means they are tossed out of their own home, probably have their income seriously impacted, placed under extreme stress and generally placed in a position where they have few resources to fight the charge.
However, every now and then they screw up and charge someone like a lawyer with one of these laws and that lawyer suddenly becomes motivated to address the unethical/illegal nature of that law.
But being labelled as “sexist “ should be seen as a badge of honour , along with “racist” or any other slur on one’s character.
“ I’m sexist and proud “ that’s what men should be saying , to take a leaf from the homosexuals book. Men must realise the feminists play dirty , the gloves are off , the fight is in the gutter already , so what does it matter what is said .
After all ,in a true democracy a person is allowed to have sexist or racist or homophobic views and to express these views whenever they want, it’s called freedom of speech .
I agree with your sentiment. However I would not say “ I’m sexist and proud “. I would go straight to the core of it and point out how sexist the law is and how hypocritical and Orwellien it is to slur the victim of the systemic sexism with that double speak in order to cancel them. How very North Korean of them.
Whistling in the Dark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFDlz9WwpVY
Zali is right ,the courts are more about theatre than getting to the truth. The “players” lawyers ,judges etc. have the usual big egos of performers and stars ,they love an audience and the drama of the courtroom, truth and justice are only secondary in importance .
"[C]omplainants routinely referred to as 'victims'" is something I've been railing about for years. When a judge refers to a complainant as a 'victim' it should be grounds for a mistrial and a disciplinary action should be taken against that judge. It assumes that the violation occurred. Why even have a trial?
I’m fascinated by the way feminists reject age-old legal principles, in particular the right to confront one’s accusers, and the presumption of innocence, in cases where women accuse men of crimes against them.
The corruption of state institutions, such as the courts by feminists will at some not very distant time come back to bite feminists and their simp toadies. That’ll be amusing.
Some of the behaviour of the judiciary in australia lately makes me wonder if they were appointed to a lifetime position by some trump type (only left wing) who has the power to fire them at will.
Always pleased to see you fighting the good fight. It is not often that those who manage other people's lives with prejudice are called to account for the bias built into what they do.
And here in Melbourne we have a mainstream media outlet with an article about women complaining that men won't date them. Spoiler alert: it's all men's fault.
An article like that should have follow on discussions such as the effect on future generations,
The birth rate is falling fast as it is , anything which inhibits young men and women getting together will have the obvious effect , less marriages , less births , a falling population.
Australia is in this position now and depends on immigration to maintain its population level.
This is a risky thing to do, much better to breed your own people and the catch cry from the early 20th century of “ populate or perish” now rings true.
I can't imagine why a high smart young man would have a long term relationship with a woman any more. It makes zero logical sense for the man at all.
It is good to hear that this has come back to bite them on their bottoms. About time.
The great Stephen Baskerville has just released his latest book, Who Lost America: why the US went communist and what to do about it.
Naturally the feminist welfare state is at the heart of things. What struck me were a couple of things he said. Namely that these feminist courts and now "career-driven conviction mills". The phrase "Judicial chicanery" got a few runs but the most impelling was that "In most cases it is the judicial apparatchiks, much more than those who they prosecute, who belong behind bars."
I think this is a great point and that we need to go on the offense and start campaigning that any legislator or magistrate/judge/policeman who indulges in the prosecution of "gender crimes" ought to be jailed. They are obviously wicked, Unconstitutional and of course, due process fiascos.
Let's do it~
Thanks Bettina.
Similarly worried with the Zali headline.😆
No need sounds like we’re in good hands.
Best of luck will eagerly follow from afar.
678 The Longer Term Consequences of Masculism on Women (link) Part 1 (YouTubevideo) (Mindsvideo) (BitChutevideo) (Odyseevideo) (MGTOWtvvideo) (Xvideo) Part 2 (YouTubevideo) (Mindsvideo) (BitChutevideo) (Odyseevideo) (MGTOWtvvideo) (Xvideo)
(your software does not pick up links) so here is one -
https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/678a-the-longer-term-consequences-of-masculism-on-women-part-1-masculism-mgtow_jjpsCZEROGKGYOr.html
https://www.mgtow.tv/watch/678b-the-longer-term-consequences-of-masculism-on-women-part-2-masculism-mgtow_fBdgUKEFMNgYa35.html
https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com (click on the masculist tab for nearly 700 masculist essays and their videos)
Descr : This flyer paints a picture of what life will be like for women after a decade or two in the future of masculism, living in a world where masculist ideas are as widely known as feminist ideas, where there has been enough time for the political consequences of masculism to have fully played out.
Another great article and a cause well worth fighting for. I won't be in Sydney but I support you 100% and will watch anything I can on the live stream.