This entry was posted on Friday, March 8th, 2013 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
A lot of people accuse feminists of thinking that all men are rapists. That’s not true. But do you know who think all men are rapists?
Rapists do.
They really do. In psychological study, the profiling, the studies, it comes out again and again.
Virtually all rapists genuinely believe that all men rape, and other men just keep it hushed up better. And more, these people who really are rapists are constantly reaffirmed in their belief about the rest of mankind being rapists like them by things like rape jokes, that dismiss and normalize the idea of rape.
If one in twenty guys is a real and true rapist, and you have any amount of social activity with other guys like yourself, really cool guy, then it is almost a statistical certainty that one time hanging out with friends and their friends, playing Halo with a bunch of guys online, in a WoW guild, or elsewhere, you were talking to a rapist. Not your fault. You can’t tell a rapist apart any better than anyone else can. It’s not like they announce themselves.
But, here’s the thing. It’s very likely that in some of these interactions with these guys, at some point or another someone told a rape joke. You, decent guy that you are, understood that they didn’t mean it, and it was just a joke. And so you laughed.
And, decent guy who would never condone rape, who would step in and stop rape if he saw it, who understands that rape is awful and wrong and bad, when you laughed?
That rapist who was in the group with you, that rapist thought that you were on his side. That rapist knew that you were a rapist like him. And he felt validated, and he felt he was among his comrades.
Of course, on further reading past the headline, we see the former MP as none other than card carrying communist and Green MP Keith Locke. Therefore, we can apply the Locke Litmus test to this decision.
If Keith thinks something is a good idea, it’s probably not!
Popular. Like or Dislike: 230 You need to be logged in to vote
Following on from yesterday’s GD..Twelve muslim men meet with Richard Prosser , supposedly all of the muslim leaders in CHCh.. Why are all the muslim leaders in CHCH male? No gender equality going on here.
Surely they could be the subject of a complaint to that useless entity , the Human Rights Commission. It is illegal in NZ to discriminate in this way.
you have raised the issue of “Rape culture” in your blog post. You didn’t raise the issue of rape as such, but of “rape culture”.
What I was doing yesterday – and some others – was simply questioning, “challenging” if you like, this assertion that there is a rape culture. There have been a few assertions on this, but where is the EVIDENCE to back it up? Your blog post from yesterday seems to simply state it as fact. I questioned you on that supposed “fact”, and you criticised me for daring to question you.
Rape is a problem. No disagreement. Trying to manufacture a false “culture” does not help it.
Sadly this will have to be my last post on the subject, for I have a hell of a lot of work to do.
Here we go again: P.G. crusading against his new pet-peeve and mythical obsession, the rape culture.
First the whorish Dunne, then The sub-Standard, now this. What’s next?
“Sad to say I’ve experienced that sort of thing, I’ve lived in it. And now chosen to speak up about it.”….interesting circle of friends you have there PG.
PS: I notice the site you linked to contains this little gem:
But, here’s the thing. It’s very likely that in some of these interactions with these guys, at some point or another someone told a rape joke. You, decent guy that you are, understood that they didn’t mean it, and it was just a joke. And so you laughed.
Umm … no. I have NEVER been in a social situation where someone “told a rape joke” and everybody laughed. Who the hell are these people, and who do they mix with? If that’s the sort of behaviour they see around them, they need to start seriously questioning who they’re hanging out with. Seriously, this is the basis for stating we have a rape culture???
I have never quite understood the pay equity argument. After listening to Mike Hosking interviewing the CEO of the BNZ this morning I now have a better understanding. While he was explaining why the bank won a UN award for promoting woman in business etc he mentioned they had worked on the pay gap issue. Hosking said ” What do mean ? If a job comes up and a man and woman apply, is the woman potentially going to get paid less ?” ( or words similar to that) The CEO went on explain that it depended on experience , the pay grade the applicants were currently on etc. What a load of rubbish — I think Hosking and I thought the same way, a job is worth so much to get done properly, the best applicant gets the job and is paid what ever the salary is.
But what the CEO explained seemed to be a very structured system applied to the worker not the job — so my understanding is now that it is probably the unions holding women back because this is the system they generally encourage. But also the big employers have to take some flack as well because it would appear they have accepted the situation.
The commie Keith Locke is like a moth attracted to the candle flame. He just has to keep coming back again & again to remind us that he was a complete tosser and no loss.
And the reader had to wait until the third paragraph to see who the former MP actually was. This could have readily been stated in the first sentence, or atleast the former MP’s party saving the bother of reading further.
I don’t think we have a rape culture. Rape is rare. I think we have a problem with an overly liberated culture where one-night stands are too common. In the context of a sexual encounter, one of inherent vulnerability and privacy, matters so commonly devolve into “he said, she said” affairs. Moreover, we have succeeded in removing some of the stigma to being a victim of rape to encourage complaints. That itself is a good thing – because a victim of a brutal crime should not be deterred from coming forward. Nevertheless, it does mark a change from the past and one that renders statistics of limited value.
If, aside from that, all you have is anecdotal evidence about jokes and blog comments to support your bold assertion then I think you shouldn’t be surprised to have some push back.
One last thing, Pete. You have your own blog. Can you please consider doing your blogging there? I understand that you want to leverage the big Kiwiblog readership to increase your own numbers but I think your obviousness is really starting to hack people off. It makes you look like a spammer and the only reason it doesn’t make KB intolerable is because you are the only one who seems to do it. If everybody with a blog did it, you would soon have a tragedy of the commons effect.
Umm … no. I have NEVER been in a social situation where someone “told a rape joke” and everybody laughed. Who the hell are these people, and who do they mix with? If that’s the sort of behaviour they see around them, they need to start seriously questioning who they’re hanging out with. Seriously, this is the basis for stating we have a rape culture???
Yesterday Tauhei Notts “told a rape joke”, Kea downplayed it and no one but me challenged it, although thumbs down and up were equal on four each. thedavincimode downplayed another rape joke situation and got 9 thumbs up, mine was the only one against.
No, everybody didn’t laugh, but some registered approval and others didn’t challenge it. That adds weight to the possibility that rape jokes are seen as normal and acceptable in our culture, and rapists may easily get that impression.
Last week I was just having a discussion with my colleague. He said that he would rape a woman if he couldn’t get caught. I said that I couldn’t. I asked him why would anyone want to cause such pain to a woman for our own pleasure? He replied, “Because we’re men.” I have another colleague who has the exact same thinking as him. I seem to be in a minority here.
” I seem to be in a minority here.” Well done, Carlos. Why don’t you pat yourself on the back for not being a prospective rapist? Clearly you and Pete George are both two of a few white knights who wouldn’t committ one of the worst crimes imaginable if you had a good chance.
No, everybody didn’t laugh, but some registered approval and others didn’t challenge it. That adds weight to the possibility that rape jokes are seen as normal and acceptable in our culture…
P.G., do you realise how self-righteous and sanctimonious you sound? When in a hole, stop digging.
Pete George ” Kea downplayed it ” yes he did. Kea did not down play rape, but made an observation about black humour. I have worked in some difficult environments. It is common to use black humour as a way of coping.
A person who really considered rape ok would not see the humour in it. It is funny because it is wrong and terrible.
It is noted that you did not find it funny, which concerns me. Like many people who get on a soap box and preach morality, I suspect your dark side is darker than most. That would explain why you assume the worst about others. It is based on your own inner demons.
And Cato, your reaction to what Carlos said further emphasises the culture problem, where you diss him (and me) and say nothing about the colleague who would rape “because we’re men”, in fact you refer to the possibility of “a good chance” of rape.
I’m not complaining because I don’t want to think about the subject you are raising. I have no preconceptions other than a general scepticism. Do you realise how you sound? My complaints are about what appears to be your excessive self-regard. If you want to be a blogger, go blog at your blog.
Try to get guest posts or write insightful things that other people want to link to voluntarily.
“[You] say nothing about the colleague who would rape…”
Could it be that most men would take it for granted that rape is enough of a terrible crime? That is so obvious that doesn’t need stating. What I find really weird is that you, and presumably Carlos, seem to think you are amazing moral paragons because you are against rape. In other words, you want praise for having the ‘courage’ to have absolutely normal moral beliefs.
I can’t believe that when I used the word “good” in the context of “good chance” clearly in the sense of “likelihood” or “probability” you lamely tried to twist that into stipulating that I have used it in the sense that “rape is good.” And that kind of thing is what you are relying on to advance your ‘culture of rape’ theme.
You’re absolutely unbelievable – and looking more and more like a real loser.
James Stephenson – there’s a big difference with that sort of joke, everyone knows they shouldn’t put javelins through babies heads, not everyone knows they shouldn’t rape if they think they can get away with it.
Rape culture: we’re living in it By Queen Of Thorns / March 7, 2013
“What is rape culture? If you ask people who are scared of feminism and radical concepts like “equality”, it’s all a big lie, it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s a meaningless jargon term which we women throw around to justify our seething hatred of all men.” http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/rape-culture-were-living-in-it/
not everyone knows they shouldn’t rape if they think they can get away with it.
Well of course, not everyone. But the number of men that think its ok to rape if you can get away with it, is about the same as the number of men who think it’s ok to put babies in washing machines as a punishment.
“[I]f all men are so called rapists.” Nobody is saying that all men are rapists here. What PG is simply saying, is that there are just a handful of men out there who are “anti-rape”; that he is one of them; and that he is on a crusade to teach the “pro-rape” male majority to turn away from the endemic exaltation of the crime.
“Police statistics show that nearly ten a day are reported, and it’s known that many more go unreported. That is far from rare.”
What the hell, man? Do you even think about the words you are using when you are writing them? If we had a ‘culture of rape’ then a large chunk of the female population would have been subjected to forcible rape. Have most of the women in your life been subjected to it? Simply reporting un-nuanced, aggregate numbers without any context doesn’t tell us much at all about the ‘culture’.
Boy, I can see why nobody reads your blog. If I wasn’t held hostage by you here, I wouldn’t.
March 8th, 2013 at 9:19 am
James Stephenson – there’s a big difference with that sort of joke, everyone knows they shouldn’t put javelins through babies heads, not everyone knows they shouldn’t rape if they think they can get away with it.
Incredible ! Cato summed PG & his ilk up very well with this well worded observation:
seem to think you are amazing moral paragons because you are against rape. In other words, you want praise for having the ‘courage’ to have absolutely normal moral beliefs.
Well of course, not everyone. But the number of men that think its ok to rape if you can get away with it, is about the same as the number of men who think it’s ok to put babies in washing machines as a punishment.
That’s one of the most extreme minimisations of rape that I’ve seen.
Number of reported babies put in washing machines as a punishment in the last five years: 1
Number of actual babies put in washing machines as a punishment: probably very few more than 1
Number of reported rapes in the last five years: about 15,000
Number of actual rapes: probably much higher
I believe I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t mean that I was a minority in the sense that most men would rape if they could, but I wouldn’t. I meant a minority in this small circle of male colleagues. No need to presume that I think I’m especially moral for not wanting to rape. I still believe that most men don’t want to rape. I’m just a little shocked about my colleagues attitude.
I’ll be more careful in future with the way I write to avoid being misunderstood.
Number of reported rapes in the last five years: about 15,000
Number of actual rapes: probably much higher
Pete George not all those “reported rapes” are rapes – most of them do not come to court and are not prosecuted because they are ambiguous. Some reported rapes are outright lies, perhaps as many as 30%.
Before you lock someone up and throw away the key you have to rigourously define the crime for which they are being convicted, the feminist definition of rape which you are using will not cut it
*sigh* pete, your 9:50 doesn’t come anywhere near ‘responding’ to the quote. You assume one actions are always accompanied with ones approval for those actions. Which is not the case. Most people who do wrong know this, but continue regardless.
Pete George, who is the target audience for the performance your putting on ?
You have portayed -other- men as part of a rape culture, with your self as the exception. I suspect you think your views will make you popular with the ladies. Trouble is, most women have good intuition and are not so easily fooled.
That’s one of the most extreme minimisations of rape that I’ve seen.
Oh do fuck off. Quite without Andrei’s point about how you’re going to define rape, you really do need to factor in the statistical frequency with which a so-inclinded perpetrator has an opportunity and that while rapists probably look to maximise their opportunities, kiddie-bashers thankfully will try to avoid being around kids as much as possible.
Pete George persists in claiming that he is the lone voice in the wilderness, a brave soul standing up and saying what needs to be said, gosh darn it.
He claims that people on Kiwiblog are playing down rape and joking about rape. He fails to understand that what many of us are questioning is this supposed rape culture. Not rape itself. There is a difference, just as there is a difference between drinking and a drinking culture.
Winston Peters is “the Hugo Chavez of New Zealand politics” and his commitment to “buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser” is “no more than hot, populist air ” – according to Peter Dunne when asked what the United Future position would be on asset buy backs in any coalition agreements.
I think this is no more than hot, populist air from Winston – by buy back he means re-nationalise, which no government would ever agree to.
I suspect the “weasel words” agreement would be something like the NZ Government giving active consideration to re-purchasing shares as and when they would become available, but that would impose extraordinary costs on the taxpayer.
If one of the reasons for selling shares in state assets is to broaden their capital base and lessen the dependence on the state’s coffer for their future capital requirements, then buying back shares or re-nationalisation makes absolutely no sense at all. All it will mean is that these entities will be even more capital constrained than they are now, with the prospects of future service improvements even more crippled.
It is dumb policy – but it has a sinister overtone. Peters knows it’s dumb, but he also knows he can play on people’s fears and gain popularity from such an approach. He is really the Hugo Chavez of New Zealand politics and needs to be exposed as such.
Neither National nor Labour governments would agree to re-nationalise the shares, so Peters is simply posturing.
In 1994, three years before her death, journalist Christopher Hitchens made this documentary asking if Mother Teresa’s reputation was deserved.
Facts:
1. The Catholic Church and the brainless mass media loved her
2. She raised a ton of money, much of it from criminals who needed to recycle their image
3. The money she raised was used primarily for additional self promotion and the few people her Order did help received the most low level assistance imaginable.
So now we know the wealthy are being looked after whilst low decile schools are closed enmasse
Education Minister Hekia Parata is expected to announce plans to build two new schools in Hamilton’s rapidly expanding north-east at a public meeting today.
Ok,it is in Aussie..but a Greenie is a Greenie “…under a radical Greens policy to make banks surrender a slice of their earnings in exchange for protection from insolvency…”
The Reds are eyeing the super…while the Greens are eyeing your savings…if the f**kers cant tax you enough…but i must admit i like the “protection from insolvency” part of the policy…once(if) the Greens get their mitts on the treasury,they will probably need all the protection they can get.
this side… Russell armed with ink…lay’s out his plans for the NZ economy.
Hamish Rutherford is making test cricket look easy. He’s up to 136 not out now, and New Zealand is 209 for one, with the lead now at 42 and growing steadily. It’s great stuff for those of us who have endured some pretty tragic New Zealand performances over the years.
hinamanu (2,245) Says:
March 8th, 2013 at 11:18 am
“Rototuna schools announcement
So now we know the wealthy are being looked after whilst low decile schools are closed enmasse ”
Which low-decile schools are closing? Or are you saying that the Hamilton students could be flown to Christchurch each day, in order to keep those Christchurch schools whose rolls have crashed open?
Eric Holder Insists Some BANKS ARE JUST TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE
When the Attorney General of the United States admits some banks are simply too big to prosecute, it might be time to admit we have a problem — and that goes for both the financial and justice systems.
If Shearer wants to get some credibility he needs to come out say what he would do instead, with the power companies. Cullen & Clarke happily collected the profits from the SOEs for 9-10 yrs not worrying about prices going up.
Because socialist countries are low on morality thresholds.
They have to be to allow tolerance of the government stealing the product of one man’s labour and giving it to another man in return for his vote.
The higher the moral threshold in a country, the less likely the population at large are to be seduced by the immorality of socialism.
That is why socialists must constantly attack morality and promote ideas like moral relativity. In order to incrementally attract more believers and more voters and more people accepting of its basic immorality.
Not that the disgusting weasel PG understands any of this. He is just (as usual) intent on a cowardly Marxist smear of males and patriarchal families in general.
Carlos- when “no one is watching” is the time you should least do anything immoral. Always try to be true to yourself.
Eric Holder Insists Some BANKS ARE JUST TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE
He’s talking bullshit. Holder’s thinking is probably more like this:
The bigger they are the more they can be forced to contribute to public finances. Which, if there’s cause, is nice.
.. however ..
The bigger they are, and irrespective of cause, the more likely they are to withdraw party campaign funding. We definitely can’t have that! , so we’ll claim they’re too big to prosecute
“Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory (1982) Signs Vol. 7, No.3Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.
p. 533
[edit] Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence (1983) Signs Vol. 8 No. 4”Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.”
Red, I’ve got nothing against decent law abiding modern males, I’m glad we’ve become more civilised since the not very distant days where marital rape and beating the shit out of the missus were ignored by society and law enforcement as “just a domestic”.
A New Zealand Judge [Justice John Priestley] today ordered the forfeiture of property / vehicles / assets with a combined value of $5 Million dollars from a Waikato moron [Stephen John Gray, 57] convicted of dealing in drugs. He was also jailed for 12 years.
In a forfeiture agreement ratified by the judge today, Gray will give up two vehicles (worth $45,000 each), the Exelby Rd house (worth $900,000) and the farm (worth $3 million), as well as having to come up with another $1.1 million.
Fan-bloody-tastic! Another moron off our streets. Good riddance. This Judge should take a bow.
Not often I support a Green MP but it is an outrage Elder is still on $1.3m. Elder says he cannot speak to the media but Ford says he can. His pay should be stopped. The Nat MPs should not oppose Elder being ordered to front up with some answers.
Time for Elder to front – MP
HAMISH RUTHERFORD AND VERNON SMALL
“……I’m glad we’ve become more civilised since the not very distant days where marital rape and beating the shit out of the missus were ignored by society and law enforcement as “just a domestic”……”
Or in your case Pete “just a useful idiot…”
The truth is, as more and more marriages and families break down, and more and more kids are not raised by their biological mother and father, criminal activity will arise and worsen.
Now I can already hear my critics hyperventilating, so let me say what I am not saying here. I am not saying family breakdown is the only variable in the equation. There are many factors at work when kids go off the rails. And I am not saying that if a kid grows up in a broken, blended or single-parent family, he or she will automatically become involved in crime. And I am not saying that two-parent families produce perfect children.
Nor am I saying that families where one of the biological parents is missing do not need help and support. Single parents need all the help they can get. But what I am saying is what common sense, along with a wealth of social science data, already suggests: kids are much less likely to become involved in criminal behaviour if raised by a mother and father, preferably cemented by marriage.
That is the overwhelming conclusion of some forty years of research into this issue. Not only are kids who are raised by their biological mother and father much less likely to get involved in crime, but they are also much less likely to use drugs, commit suicide, do poorly in school, or engage in other anti-social behaviours.
Here is a small sampling of the evidence. One study of 522 teenage girls found that girls in divorced families committed more delinquent acts (e.g., drug use, larceny, skipping school) than their counterparts in intact families.
A study of street-gangs reveals this linkage as well. In a recent book on the subject, Francis Ianni found that most gang members in America come from female-headed households. And a study of British communities found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every major type of crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary.
A study reported in Psychology Today found that “90 per cent of repeat adolescent firestarters live in a mother-only constellation”. A Michigan State University study of 72 adolescent murderers discovered that 75 per cent of them had divorced or never-married parents. And a study of 108 violent rapists, all repeat offenders, found that 60 per cent came from single-parent homes.
One study tracked every child born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1955 for 30 years. It found that five out of six delinquents with an adult criminal record came from families where a parent – almost always the father – was absent.
An American author, reviewing the evidence, reports the following: “Poverty alone does not explain all of these effects. Indeed, poverty may not explain any of them”. He cites a 1988 study by Douglas Smith and G. R. Jarjoura which analysed victimisation data on over 11,000 individuals from three urban areas in New York, Florida and Missouri. They arrived at this startling conclusion: the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rates of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Neither poverty nor race seem to account very much for the crime rate, compared to the proportion of single parent families, Smith and Jarjoura found.
In Australia, a book by Alan Tapper highlights this connection between broken families and crime. In a study of rising crime rates in Western Australia, Tapper suggests that “family breakdown in the form of divorce and separation is the main cause of the crime wave”.
A longitudinal study of 512 Australian children found that there are more offenders coming from families of cohabiting than married couples, and there are proportionally more offenders who become recidivists coming from families of cohabiting than married couples. The study concludes, “The relationship between cohabitation and delinquency is beyond contention: children of cohabiting couples are more likely to be found among offenders than children of married couples”.
Those who work with juvenile offenders in Australia confirm these findings. One youth worker in Melbourne has spent nearly two decades working with homeless youth and young offenders. He says that “almost 100 per cent” of these kids are from “single parent families or blended families”. And a recent New Zealand study found that 64.6 per cent of juvenile offenders had no birth father present.
The connections between crime and family breakdown have been made by the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, which compared crime rates with out-of-wedlock birth rates from 1903 to 1993. It found that the “percentage of ex-nuptial births correlates significantly with both serious and violent crime at both one and two decades time lapse”.
Drug usage is also higher among those who come from broken homes. An American study of over 1700 youths found that adolescents growing up in a single-parent or stepparent family often feel estranged and consequently drift into drug use and abuse. And a New Zealand study of nearly 1000 children observed over a period of 15 years found that children who have watched their parents separate are more likely to use illegal drugs than those whose parents stay together.
The truth is, until we get serious about family breakdown and the erosion of marriage, the trends in youth crime will not disappear, but only get worse. By all means, deal with other factors, such as the steady stream of toxic entertainment found in our media. But until the real cause of family disintegration is dealt with, we will simply see more criminal activity amongst our young people.
“……I’m glad we’ve become more civilised since the not very distant days where marital rape and beating the shit out of the missus were ignored by society and law enforcement as “just a domestic”……”
How many rapists did you base that on Pete 5? 10? 11? 12?
If you disagree…then show us the court records Pete…..or stop commenting on Marriage and the welfare of women and children!
Thanks. Thankfully my conscience wouldn’t allow me to do such a thing. However, I’m saddened that many people only “be good” because of the law. I think a moral populace shouldn’t need as many laws as an immoral one. People’s conscience should be sensitive enough to know that if I rape, murder, steal from or assault someone, then that is wrong as I’m harming someone who doesn’t deserve to be harmed and hasn’t harmed me. However, it seems that there have always been humans who don’t have that same conscience sensitivity. I don’t know whether conscience is nature or nurture or a combination of both. My father did stuff that he thought was okay, but I would not do because I think it was wrong.
Dotcom can sue NZ’s intelligence agency, court rules
A New Zealand court has sided with IT tycoon Kim Dotcom, confirming his right to sue the national spy agency for damages over illegally gathering intelligence on him.
Harriet, good post. Don’t hold your breath waiting for PG to show up. Your post indicates that kids raised by women, with no male influence, have the worst social outcomes. This does not support PG’s ramblings that women are “victims” and men are part of a damaging “rape culture” and a raft of other social ills.
Good thoughts indeed but kids are still being abused because the anti-smacking law is a sick joke implanted by single communist women with no experience in child rearing. The term ‘reasonable force was completely ignored and physical abuse was already illegal.
The anti smacking law is just a state ploy to take sovereignty of parents from their children. Nothing more, nothing less.
Harriet, I agree with you, apart from your unneccesary disses at me which detracted and distracted from your otherwise sensible and well researched comment.
Family violence is a big factor, both a cause of problems and as a result of problems. And influencing that significantly is drug (especially alcohol) abuse, once again both caused by and a result of famlie unit breakdowns.
Ignoring violence within families as “just a domestic” was as damaging to many kids and partners as breakups.
Just a wee note, people. You may wish to be aware that Pete George is posting about this on The Daily Blog, along with his interpretation of your comments.
We are all apparently providing “a lot of prof of rape culture at KB yesterday and today, mostly by examples of abuse, denial, diversion and minimisation of the problem.”
Appears you’ve gone to a lot of effort to research statistics which purport to correlate “family breakdown” with various social ills. Unfortunately it is all for nothing if you do not actually cite the studies you refer to. Anyone can say “a study says XYZ” with the hope that the mere mention of the word “study” lends credibility to what is being said.
But alas, you haven’t actually researched any such “studies” have you? Given that large sections of your post have been lifted verbatim from a post by Bill Muehlenberg, titled “The Dangers of Fatherlessness”, it would seem unlikely.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t even appear that Bill has referenced the studies he is citing. But even assuming all the vague references are accurate, what do they actually prove? As any climate skeptic will tell you: correlation doesn’t prove causation. Moreover, none of the statistics you quote actually contradict what Pete George said. Even if everything you proffered were true it could still be the case that we have simply traded one evil for another or equally that the two evils have nothing to do with each other.
Even if everything you proffered were true it could still be the case that we have simply traded one evil for another
To a fair extent I think that’s true. Societal, financial and legal pressures often used to lock (mostly) women and children into marriages that could be any combination of oppressive, abusive and dangerous.
The pendulum needed to swing away from this and society then provided a way out.
Partly as a result of this and partly due to other societal changes the pendulum has swing too far twards too many loose relationships, an absence of relationships and a diffetrent type of mixed family relationships that tend to be more dysfunctional and potentially damaging than stable relationships.
We can’t and shouldn’t go back to how things were. What we have to do is look at addressing the problems we have now.
Something I heard John Banks say has a lot of merit – two essentials for children to have good beginings in life are unconditional love and a top class education. If we can find a way of moving more towards those ideals we will go a long way towards improving outcomes.
But Banks also conceded it wasn’t a quick fix (nothing is), it can take a generation to recover from dysfunctional damage.
none of the statistics you quote actually contradict what Pete George said
Weihana, It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence. His claims are incredible and we would expect the evidence to support those claims to be very clear and compelling. So far he has produced nothing, other than to accuse those who challenge him of being part of a “rape culture”.
“It’s Seth MacFarlane making jokes about seeing famous actress’ breasts on screen – while referencing tragic, violent movies featuring brutal rape scenes.”
O how stupid. What is with people that makes them so precious? First my recollection is that Seth wasn’t joking about rape, he was making a parody of himself. Second, yes you damn well can make a joke about rape as you can about ANYTHING. There is no subject off limits for joking about, granted there’s always a time and a place. But people joke about death, about racism, about all sorts of things. Why not rape? Of course rape isn’t funny to anyone who has suffered it. Neither is death. Are all jokes about death off limits?
none of the statistics you quote actually contradict what Pete George said
Weihana, It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence.
Agreed. But the point is that regardless of whether or not there is a “rape culture”, of what relevance are the statistics Harriet quotes? It’s possible for both of them to be right: that is it is possible that in times gone by marital rape and other abuses were rife, while it could also be true that “family breakdown” has caused the social ills Harriet claims.
What the hell, Pete George? Mischaracterise my criticisms of you on other blogs why don’t you? If you’re going to do that, at least be honourable enough to give the correct context to my criticisms. That is:
1. In absolute terms and relative to other countries, rape is a rare occurence. By that I mean that it is not an everyday occurance for most people. Nobody I know talks wistfully about committing those crimes. Acknowledgint that does not minimise the harm it causes to the individual victims at all.
2. Because rape usually occurs in the inherently private context of sex, statistics are of very limited use in giving us the full picture of much of anything.
3. You come across like a real fool for patting yourself on the back for having the ‘courage’ to denounce the crime of rape. In this respect, maybe I have got it wrong. Thinking of my own male family, friends and co-workers, I can’t think of any of them who wouldn’t intervene to try to prevent rape – even at the risk of their own safety. Maybe I am at fault here for generalising those attributes too widely in my mind.
I mean, it could be that you hang out exclusively with cowards and psychos who would tolerate such awful crimes and you really are a ‘voice in the wilderness’ on this issue in your own, grubbier, existence. What’s the alternative being that you are a sad little man with real delusions that you are brave for slandering everyone who is not you for contributing to a nebulous ‘culture of rape’.
Question: do you really believe that you’re a voice in the wilderness among men in being anti-rape? Do you really believe that a majority (or substantial minority) of New Zealand men are “pro-rape”. Or are you just an unprincipled hack?
Weihana, we do not know what we do not know. You can speculate anything on that basis. Maybe the number of unreported rapes are less than contemplated. Who knows. Maybe marital rape and other abuses were not rife in day gone by. Maybe men suffer more domestic abuse than women…We can go on in this manner, but it serves no purpose.
PG has accused an entire culture of being rape enablers. He has been particularly harsh on those that have questioned him. He has done this with no evidence. He has been provided evidence to show what a minute percentage of men commit rape. His response to those who provide evidence that diminishes his claims has been to accuse them of being prime examples of “rape culture” and accuse them of minimising rape ! All done with no evidence.
Harriet addressed a wider social issue and was not engaging PG directly on his claims.
Sonny Bill Williams has described his losing debut for the Sydney Roosters as toughafter his time spent in rugby “kicking stones with the pretty boys”.
No doubt, Williams will display his flair as he settles into a code he hasn’t played for five years but first up the All Blacks star wanted to focus on the basics.
What a waste of money excercise this wanker really was/is.
The NZRU should pay taxpayers back for wasting money on him and then using him to spruik our funds for the World Cup.
HOLY PROSTITUTES
A man is driving down a deserted stretch of highway
when he notices a sign out of the corner of his eye…
It reads:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
10 MILES
He thinks this is a figment of his imagination and drives on without second thought.
Soon he sees another sign which reads:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
5 MILES
Suddenly he begins to realize that these signs are for real and drives past a third sign saying:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
NEXT RIGHT
His curiosity gets the best of him and he pulls into the drive. On the far side of the parking lot is a stone building with a small sign next to the door reading:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
He climbs the steps and rings the bell. The door is answered by a nun in a long black habit who asks,
‘What may we do for you! my son?’
He answers, ‘I saw your signs along the highway and was interested in possibly doing business….’
‘Very well my son. Please follow me.’ He is led through many winding passages and is soon quite disoriented. The nun stops at a closed door and tells the man, ‘Please knock on this door.’
He does so and another nun in a long habit, holding a tin cup answers the door. This nun instructs, ‘Please place $100 in the cup then go through the large wooden door at the end of the hallway.’
He puts $100 in the cup, eagerly trots down the hall and slips through the door pulling it shut behind him.
The door locks, and he finds himself back in the parking lot facing another sign:
GO IN PEACE.
YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCREWED BY
THE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS.
SERVES YOU RIGHT, YOU SINNER
Little Johnny goes into the kitchen and sees his mother and, standing beside her, an identical copy of his mother – same face, same body, same hair, same clothes, same shoes, everything.
“Johnny! This is a robot!” screams one of the mothers. “She’s one of those replicants like in Blade Runner! Go and get Daddy’s shotgun and shoot her!”
“No way!” screams the other mother. “I’m your mother! She’s the replicant! Shoot her!”
Johnny examines them both, but has no way of knowing which is his real mother. After a moment’s thought, he runs out to fetch his father’s shotgun, goes into his own room and sits down at his gaming console. The mothers follow him in.
“How can you sit down and play silly games at a time like this?” says the first mother.
“Yeah, how can you play with your Xbox at a time like this?” says the second mother, whereupon Johnny shoots her head off and goes to hug his mother.
“How did you know?” she says, tears in her eyes. “How could you be so sure?”
“It had to be her. I know you haven’t a fucking clue what an Xbox is.”
Pete George: I have to agree that it’s rude, if not intellectually dishonest, to take comments made at one blog (having stirred up a hornet’s nest, for the apparent purpose of provoking those comments, but without having offered a substantiated argument of your own), and then take it upon yourself to “summarise” or “paraphrase” or “report” (take your pick) those comments on another blog. I also think (subjective impression) your commenting style at The Daily Blog is slightly different compared to your style here. One could draw various uncharitable conclusions from all of this, but I will throw it over to you. What exactly are you trying to achieve?
This has been done about the Standard on Kiwiblog for some time.
To be fair, it was an issue that was on the Daily Blog about rape culture and the nature of a discussion on Kiwiblog was a relevant reference. To seek out comment on a topic as a research exercise is not of itself dishonest.
Surely those posting on DPF’s blog should realise that.
Nostradamus, do you think all bloggers who take comments and “summarise” or “paraphrase” or “report” them at another blog are rude and intellectually dishonest? Becasue it’s standard blog practice. And journalists have been doing it since newspapers were invented.
I’ve been very open and honest. I have been commenting across blogs for a long time. I get criticised for the frequency I provide links showing what I do and where I do it. You and others knew where I was commenting because you followed the links you grizzle about. To act surprised now and saying “look what he’s doing!” seems a bit disingenuous.
I also think (subjective impression) your commenting style at The Daily Blog is slightly different compared to your style here.
Again, why should this be a surprise? I’m sure your style would be “slightly different” if you commented at The Daily Blog or The Standard or Whale Oil. Your comment at 8.24pm is more than “slightly diffferent” in style to other comments you’ve made here.
One could draw various uncharitable conclusions from all of this, but I will throw it over to you. What exactly are you trying to achieve?
I find it interesting to see who has attacked me over this, who has reacted and how they have reacted. Few have openly questioned the nature of comments directed at me that have included extreme abuse and lies – but that’s not surprising, who would want to volunteer to be a target like I have been?.
Nostradamus, I have been “summarised” and “paraphrased” on this issue here with blatant misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty – either through ignorance of what I have actually said or deliberately lying in order to attack and discredit me. But that obviously isn’t something you are bothered about.
I pushed boundaries on this and I knew it would make some people uncomfortable. That was my intention. I think our violence and rape cultures have been proven by the nature of some of the reactions. Some people obviously don’t it being pointed out that they are examples of something they are trying to deny. Too bad. I know I won’t change some of your opinions but I hope I have provoked some thinking amongst the more open minded.
One thing I haven’t been accused of on this is that old favourite diss, sitting on the fence.
I’m sorry to say this, but I can see why lprent banned you Pete. Because not only do you not get it, you appear incapable of accepting that you’re wrong.
You see yourself as some sort of Lone Ranger, a lone voice in the wilderness standing up for what’s right and true. And you feel that when you’re criticised, it vindicates you. It proves what you’ve been saying. You stand a little taller in your triumph, quietly smug in the knowledge that you’re right.
The problem is, you’re not.
You haven’t made people uncomfortable, you’ve just pissed them off. Because you have erroneously accused us of being part of a so-called “rape culture”. You have actually accused people of some pretty bloody nasty things on your blog. That this “rape culture” might just be an over-reaction by some people to what is, undoubtedly, a very real problem – the actual act of rape – never seems to occur to you. You seem incapable of accepting that you might have it wrong. And that the annoyance of some people might be due to the fact that you have accused them of being part of an extremely nasty culture which may not actually even exist in New Zealand to the degree that some people claim (except in their own fevered imaginations.
To paraphrase you, I know you won’t change your opinions but I did hope you might at least have been open minded enough to think about that possibility. I wish you were mature enough to think through some of the more sensible comments that have been made, Pete, but I fear you’re not. I fear you are incapable of accepting that you might just have made a bad mistake on this.
Graham, couldn’t have said it better than myself (and won’t try).
I will just add that i read today about the UN finally growing a pair about the real and observable.”rape culture” in the DR Congo. How could one not feel slandered when he is accused of supporting something like that just because he finds Pete George intolerably and unjustifiably self-regarding?
This is a blog which brings out reactionary attitudes to the words liberal and feminist, the term Maori Treaty rights, so it is not going to be instructive as to the wider culture.
So there were a lot of defensive posts on the rape culture meme. Some of the comments surprisingly mimicked views of some Moslems – an irony given that there is a dismissive attitude to allowing immigration by Moslems because they are not of our world view. Saying that were asking to being raped or placing themselves at risk of being raped simply for behaving as many young men hope they will – being out socialising and drinking with males. The classic was the line from Andrei was that these women did not deserve to be brides.
No one was stepping in and saying – there is no blame to the victim and no excuse for the rapist. Given the greater emphasis on false complaints – the tone was disturbing. While it did not confirm the rape culture meme (this is just a blog), it did show that a group of men and a few moralistic females could be reactionary and defensive on this topic – turn on anyone raising the issue.
It was if Pete George was a Scandinavian blonde alone at night walking past a group of Moslem immigrants and was asking for it. Rape is an act of predatory violence. A form of bullying.
SPC can I put it to you that nobody on this thread either actually blamed the victim of any rape for the terrible crime against her? Can i further put it to you that scepticism of Pete George’s claim that NZ men other than him are uniquely prone to cause rape through a culture of rape does not imply tolerance of rape?
Lastly, do you know anyone who has been a victim of that crime? I do. I don’t know how she would take your comparing responsive criticism of Pete George on an internet blog with a vicious gang rape. I would suspect that if she tought anyone here had minimised rape – it would have been you just then.
graham, there appears to be quite a it about this that you don’ get yourself, and obviously others as well.
I know I’ve pushed boundaries on this, provoked reaction and provoked some thought (I hope). I don’t feel any need to apologise.
graham – would you admit if you got anything wrong?
You see yourself as some sort of Lone Ranger, a lone voice in the wilderness standing up for what’s right and true.
I don’t – you can speak forself but don’t make presumptions about how I see myself. To be frank you haven’t got a fucking idea about much what I think and how I see things.
I see myself as one of many voices in the blogosphere. I’m well aware that “what’s right” appears differently to different people. I try to promote and provoke different ideas and views and arguments.
And you feel that when you’re criticised, it vindicates you. It proves what you’ve been saying. You stand a little taller in your triumph, quietly smug in the knowledge that you’re right.
False assumptions again.
When I’m criticised I judge whether I think it’s justified or not and learn from it accordingly. Sometimes it may prove what I’m saying, sometimes it disproves it, most often it modifies my view.
I don’t ever feel like I triumph, political debate is always going to be a work in progress with no clear winners and losers.
You haven’t made people uncomfortable, you’ve just pissed them off.
Different ways of saying similar things.
You seem incapable of accepting that you might have it wrong.
Are you certain you have it right? Are you incapable of accepting you may not have it all right on this?
I wish you were mature enough to think through some of the more sensible comments that have been made, Pete, but I fear you’re not.
I have thought through some of the more sensible comments. And I have also observed many less sensible comments that add to the picture.
I fear you are incapable of accepting that you might just have made a bad mistake on this.
A bad mistake? What damage has been done apart from a few people getting pissed off?
I think it would be a bad mistake to pretend we don’t have significant problems in New Zealand’s culture of violence (including rape).
I think it would be a bad mistake to give tacit approval to what thugs and rapists think is ok if they can get away with it. I suggest you read Carlos’ comment again.
Violence and rape have been a part of western culture for a very long time, and some of that remains. And we all play a part in our culture, by our attitudes and actions and inactions.
Perhaps you are incapable of even considering you may have some of this wrong? Do you think you are totally right and I’m totally wrong?
Cato, na I won’t pull my head in, I don’t fear anyone cutting it off because I don’t agree with them … . I suppose I have not been the victim of physical violence myself.
The talk of women who drank and who invited sexual attention as not being worthy of being brides was just part of the moralistic tone adopted by some whereas others proffered advice about how women could reduce risk to themselves (because drunk men could misbehave) – and the greater concern was for victims of false complaints – all a little too much like the old line about whether the raped woman was a virgin, and if not, was she really the victim …
Pete – you are mostly wrong. Your essential point is that we have cultural problems that lead to too many rapes. Fine. Let’s leave aside where we stand in comparison to other countries and define terms. Articulate your program a little more.
What’s an acceptable level of rape for you, Pete? How many per day? Would just 100 rapes a year show there wasn’t a culture of rape?
Of course not. Because one rape is too many.
The point is – you keep patting yourself on the back for showing the normal human reaction to rape (disgust). You havent done anything useful about it – just proclaim your braveness on an internet blog and tell a few half baked anecdotes that reveal nothing else than that you hang out with people who think rape is a joke.
SPC – rereading this thread I can’t find any examples of anyone blaming rape on drunk females. The debate is whether NZ men, by virtue of our culture, have a special propensity towards sex crime.
Also, do you stand by your own conflation of criticising Pete George with gang raping a woman?
“You have absolutely no idea what I have or haven’t done about it.”
Actually, that’s true. All i have seen is your preening and misguided self congratulation in the comments section of a blog. Please enlighten me on the rest of your program or whether that’s it.
Also, do you agree with SPC’s characterisation of scepticism about you to be tantamount to rape itself?
“rereading this thread I can’t find any examples of anyone blaming rape on drunk females.”
It was implied in the GD thread on Thursday.
I’ll have the slut marchers up in arms but women who don’t dress like harlots, don’t get drunk and come on to males who are also drunk, are extremely unlikely to be raped.
If you want to change “rape culture” a good start would be to encourage women behave like ladies and then men will almost certainly behave like gentlemen toward them.
That effectively blames the behaviour of women, including the behaviour of getting drunk. If not getting drunk and staying fully clothed prevented men from raping then there shouldn’t be any rape in Muslem cultures, should there.
Cato, why the David Brent line insult to PG elsewhere? Is going after PG supposed to be a way to earn popularity with other posters here?
Playing the hard man on the board does not sit with the ideologist of the right role. Well it would be but only if it is the Inquisitor role you are going for.
As for your distortions of what I posted earlier, is this what happens when people don’t obey your warning to pull their head in – you are going to go after them?
I agree that that comment – from another thread on another day – is offensive. I have never suggested that anyone other than raptists are to blame for rape. The issue today is whether your claims about the broader culture and your own program to combat it astack up.
To that end, i see that you have yet to decry SPC for comparing combox criticism of you to a most brutal rape. Doesn’t that minimise rape? Or do you think its accurate to describe your own victimhood that way?
Cato, you presumably know the Sermon on the Mount well, where angry words were associated with a consequence in violence and then murder. Moslems justify rape on the basis of the womens behaviour, the women in daring to defy their cultural order somehow is said to invite their violence. Does PG in daring to defy the blog group party line by contending against it, then deserve and invite a form of group bullying.
The related issue is the blog line against Moslem immigrants because they are not part of our culture, – is this culture tolerant?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I also have no idea why you reached for a rape metaphor when the discussion was centred on that very, sensitive topic.
“rereading this thread I can’t find any examples of anyone blaming rape on drunk females.”
It was implied in the GD thread on Thursday.
Hah – Pete George that is not “blaming rape on drunk females “that is pointing out a reality of life”.
If you wear an expensive wrist watch and get pissed in the French Quarter of New Orleans you are likely to be releived of it – is pointing this sad fact of life out also offensive?
Cato (and Kea) kept distorting things I said and made things up that were untrue, there’s not much chance of explaining things rationally to either of them.
But I’ll try and explain something.
Two years ago I was at Stopping Violence (an organisation that works at the coal face/bottom of the cliff) talking about how to address the culture of violence that exists in New Zealand.
I said that while I wasn’t a part of the problem because I wasn’t violent I wanted to help. I was quietly but firmly told that if I hadn’t done anything about it I was a part of the problem, part of the culture. I felt unfairly accused and fairly pissed off. But I went away and thought about it.
I thought back through my life and could remember things. A typical example – I was at rugby training one night and a teammate said something like “the missus gave me some lip last night so I sorted her out, she’ll be wearing sunnies for a few days”. And I winced and remained silent. And his missus likely went on being sorted out – until she left him a few years later. At least she survived, although no doubt mentally scarred, if not physically.
And my silence contributed, in a small way. Perhaps if I had had the guts to speak up[ and say “fuck that, it’s not on, that’s a crap way to deal with things” he (and others) may have started to learn that giving the bash wasn’t what everyone did, and eventually they might come to realise it was a bastard of a thing to do, caused problems and solved nothing.
And that may have saved his missus some major grief, and him, and his marriage, and his kids may have grown up without believing violence was a normal part of family life.
Cato, closing ones ears when this is convenient is not uncommon. And yes of course discovering the usefulness of a secular PC is also convenient in some debates. It just shows your adaptability, there are many means to an end.
Ok Pete – thanks for providing some context around this. I personally think I would stand for a man hitting a woman. Even a mate – and I was a rugby player too, you know. None of my teammates acted like that (as far as I know). Perhaps it is a generational thing.
Clearly that encounter affected you in some way, however, and I’m not surprised you feel the need to atone for your prior act of cowardliness. All I ask is that in future you lead with that self-criticism rather than come out swinging at people you don’t know.
I’m going to shut off from this topic because we are clearly at an impasse.
I note that you have yet to tick SPC off for his own rape minimisation – though it’s certainly worse than anything I have ever said.
Cato, FFS do you still not get it, do you want to tick Jesus off for comparing angry words to murder in the Sermon on the Mount for “murder” minimisation.
Cato, I gave that as an example. Perhaps you have led a perfect life and have never left something undealt with that should have been.
However saying you are going to shut off and then continuing to criticise is not being perfect. I haven’t paid much attention to what you say SPC said, you have misinterpreted a number of things I have said quite badly so i didn’t put much credibility on what you claimed.
I note you have yet to tick Kea and Andre etc off for their rape minimisation, you seem to be very selective about who you try to hold to account.
Andre is still totally blind to blaming victims and making excuses for perpetrators of rape and theft.
I have maintained the whole time that the only way men should behave is by only initiating sex when they are in a trusted, committed relationship. If they do that, they can (usually) be sure not to have any issues with consent. I just fail to see how that comment is ‘rape enabling’.
As for questions of ‘perfection’ I hardly think it takes moral perfection to express disapproval of wife beating. I would suspect that, for most men – perfect or not – it would just seem like the decent and obvious thing to do – especially if its not a hypothetical comment like your team mate.
Maybe it was a different era, and it was once acceptable to just shrug your shoulders. It’s not now. I am glad you have come around but I’m just not sure you deserve that much praise for it.
Maybe it was a different era, and it was once acceptable to just shrug your shoulders. It’s not now.
That’s extremely naive or ignorant. It now seems common for mates to kick victims in the head as well as the kinghitter. And more often the perps and mates are female. It’s widely acknowledged that there is still a terrible culture of violence in New Zealand.
I’ve seen violence advocated as a solution frequently on Kiwiblog. Maybe you haven’t noticed that at all Cato, because I haven’t noticed you speaking against it. There was some quite violent language on a thread you were participating in a couple of days ago. Maybe you only see wrong in select targets.
Andre – so if a church brazenly displays valuable ornaments and someone steals them it’s the church’s fault? If someone throws a rock through a stained glass window it’s the church’s fault for providing a tempting target?
PS I just note that your claim I have been soft on alleged violence advocated on this blog seems incongruous against your earlier, repeated protestation that we could not take other countries crime statistics into account when determining if NZ is particularly bedevilled by a “culture of rape.” By your own logic, either you chose to do something about real violence or you didn’t. You didn’t. I am glad you are contrite.
Wow, with your 7:18am response to me, I think you’ve just morphed into Philu. I haven’t contributed to this debate, and was simply offering my views, as a passive bystander. Your response was, frankly, over-the-top and shows that you are particularly sensitive on this subject.
Nostradamus, do you think all bloggers who take comments and “summarise” or “paraphrase” or “report” them at another blog are rude and intellectually dishonest? Becasue it’s standard blog practice. And journalists have been doing it since newspapers were invented.
That isn’t what I said.
You seem to have missed the important qualification in what I said: “(having stirred up a hornet’s nest, for the apparent purpose of provoking those comments, but without having offered a substantiated argument of your own)“.
The assessment I made yesterday, having read through the thread, was that you’d come charging onto a Kiwiblog thread for two days in a row, making sweeping assertions, which you failed to substantiate when repeatedly asked to do so. That was, as I say, my assessment – others clearly seem to agree.
I’ve been very open and honest. I have been commenting across blogs for a long time. I get criticised for the frequency I provide links showing what I do and where I do it. You and others knew where I was commenting because you followed the links you grizzle about. To act surprised now and saying “look what he’s doing!” seems a bit disingenuous.
Again, that isn’t what I said.
Unlike you, apparently, I don’t trawl across multiple blogs. I have a busy life and Kiwiblog is pretty much the only one I read. I didn’t know where you were commenting, except for Graham’s link. Others may not have known either, except for Graham’s link.
The issue is that you presumed to “summarise” and “paraphrase” what others have said, as somehow supporting an argument you’ve yet to substantiate, all apparently for the purpose of getting kudos at another blog. That, in my view, is not good blog ettiquette. Your behaviour was different from, say, posting a link to specific comments at Kiwiblog that, in your view, backed up your position. Instead, you purported to “summarise” and “paraphrase” them. I suspect the distinction is lost on you. But considering that you bang on about blog ettiquette all the time, I would have expected a bit more intellectual honesty from you.
Again, why should this [adopting a different commenting style at The Daily Blog] be a surprise? I’m sure your style would be “slightly different” if you commented at The Daily Blog or The Standard or Whale Oil. Your comment at 8.24pm is more than “slightly diffferent” in style to other comments you’ve made here.
I don’t comment at other blogs. But I’m sure my commenting style would be the same – expressing my views, and not playing to the local crowd. My 8:24pm comment was, I believe, balanced and not over-the-top. So, no, not more than slightly different in style to other comments I’ve made here. I’ll see if anyone else agrees with your assessment on that.
<blockquote
I find it interesting to see who has attacked me over this, who has reacted and how they have reacted. Few have openly questioned the nature of comments directed at me that have included extreme abuse and lies – but that’s not surprising, who would want to volunteer to be a target like I have been?.
Nostradamus, I have been “summarised” and “paraphrased” on this issue here with blatant misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty – either through ignorance of what I have actually said or deliberately lying in order to attack and discredit me. But that obviously isn’t something you are bothered about.
I pushed boundaries on this and I knew it would make some people uncomfortable. That was my intention. I think our violence and rape cultures have been proven by the nature of some of the reactions. Some people obviously don’t it being pointed out that they are examples of something they are trying to deny. Too bad. I know I won’t change some of your opinions but I hope I have provoked some thinking amongst the more open minded.
Again, you’ve completely missed the point. As I said, I am not getting involved in the substance of the debate. Others commenting on your views have, as far as I know, expressed them here and not run off to other blogs to do so. So all this is a bit of a smokescreen. You do seem to be holding yourself up as a shining beacon of… virtue? Fine, but at least substantiate your argument, and stop trying to frame others’ arguments in a way that serves your own agenda on other blogs.
One thing I haven’t been accused of on this is that old favourite diss, sitting on the fence.
That’s not the issue here.
Pete, I haven’t agreed with everything you’ve said at Kiwiblog, but at least we’ve been able to discuss issues in a rational way. On this issue, for some reason, you’ve completely morphed into Philu. The fact that you see everyone who points this out as somehow demonstrating the truth of your “arguments” (whatever they are) doesn’t paint you in a good light.
The fact that you see everyone who points this out as somehow demonstrating the truth of your “arguments” (whatever they are) doesn’t paint you in a good light.
The actual fact is you’re wrong, I don’t, as I’ve already explained.
which you failed to substantiate when repeatedly asked to do so. That was, as I say, my assessment – others clearly seem to agree.
I’ve explained my views a lot this topic, in fact it is my views that some have strongly disagreed with rather than failure to substantiate. There’s plenty of evidence of this.
I note that you haven’t argued about the message, just the messenger.
Is likening me to Philu another way of trying to build crowd support for discrediting? I could accuse you of morphing into Redbaiter but that would be as innaccurate and irrelevant to the issue.
March 8th, 2013 at 8:04 am
The pot-smoker will be fuming: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_fact_checking_flannerys_angry_summer_propaganda/
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:11 am
Who thinks all men are rapists?
That’s an example of rape culture. Sad to say I’ve experienced that sort of thing, I’ve lived in it. And now chosen to speak up about it.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:13 am
I see Stuff.co.nz have found a former MP who calls John Keys decision not to attend Hugo Chavez’s funeral as ‘Mind boggling!’
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8395894/Keys-Chavez-funeral-snub-mind-boggling
Of course, on further reading past the headline, we see the former MP as none other than card carrying communist and Green MP Keith Locke. Therefore, we can apply the Locke Litmus test to this decision.
If Keith thinks something is a good idea, it’s probably not!
March 8th, 2013 at 8:21 am
Following on from yesterday’s GD..Twelve muslim men meet with Richard Prosser , supposedly all of the muslim leaders in CHCh.. Why are all the muslim leaders in CHCH male? No gender equality going on here.
Vote:Surely they could be the subject of a complaint to that useless entity , the Human Rights Commission. It is illegal in NZ to discriminate in this way.
March 8th, 2013 at 8:22 am
Pete, as I said here:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/general_debate_7_march_2013.html/comment-page-1#comment-1108296
you have raised the issue of “Rape culture” in your blog post. You didn’t raise the issue of rape as such, but of “rape culture”.
What I was doing yesterday – and some others – was simply questioning, “challenging” if you like, this assertion that there is a rape culture. There have been a few assertions on this, but where is the EVIDENCE to back it up? Your blog post from yesterday seems to simply state it as fact. I questioned you on that supposed “fact”, and you criticised me for daring to question you.
Rape is a problem. No disagreement. Trying to manufacture a false “culture” does not help it.
Sadly this will have to be my last post on the subject, for I have a hell of a lot of work to do.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:22 am
As far as any right-thinking person is concerned, the bastard Chavez should be interred in a tip, a rubbish dump.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:26 am
Here we go again: P.G. crusading against his new pet-peeve and mythical obsession, the rape culture.
Vote:First the whorish Dunne, then The sub-Standard, now this. What’s next?
March 8th, 2013 at 8:26 am
“Sad to say I’ve experienced that sort of thing, I’ve lived in it. And now chosen to speak up about it.”….interesting circle of friends you have there PG.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:28 am
PS: I notice the site you linked to contains this little gem:
Umm … no. I have NEVER been in a social situation where someone “told a rape joke” and everybody laughed. Who the hell are these people, and who do they mix with? If that’s the sort of behaviour they see around them, they need to start seriously questioning who they’re hanging out with. Seriously, this is the basis for stating we have a rape culture???
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:34 am
I have never quite understood the pay equity argument. After listening to Mike Hosking interviewing the CEO of the BNZ this morning I now have a better understanding. While he was explaining why the bank won a UN award for promoting woman in business etc he mentioned they had worked on the pay gap issue. Hosking said ” What do mean ? If a job comes up and a man and woman apply, is the woman potentially going to get paid less ?” ( or words similar to that) The CEO went on explain that it depended on experience , the pay grade the applicants were currently on etc. What a load of rubbish — I think Hosking and I thought the same way, a job is worth so much to get done properly, the best applicant gets the job and is paid what ever the salary is.
Vote:But what the CEO explained seemed to be a very structured system applied to the worker not the job — so my understanding is now that it is probably the unions holding women back because this is the system they generally encourage. But also the big employers have to take some flack as well because it would appear they have accepted the situation.
March 8th, 2013 at 8:46 am
Right of Way is Way of Right. 8.13am.
The commie Keith Locke is like a moth attracted to the candle flame. He just has to keep coming back again & again to remind us that he was a complete tosser and no loss.
One day he might just fly too close !!!!
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:48 am
ROWisROW
And the reader had to wait until the third paragraph to see who the former MP actually was. This could have readily been stated in the first sentence, or atleast the former MP’s party saving the bother of reading further.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:48 am
I don’t think we have a rape culture. Rape is rare. I think we have a problem with an overly liberated culture where one-night stands are too common. In the context of a sexual encounter, one of inherent vulnerability and privacy, matters so commonly devolve into “he said, she said” affairs. Moreover, we have succeeded in removing some of the stigma to being a victim of rape to encourage complaints. That itself is a good thing – because a victim of a brutal crime should not be deterred from coming forward. Nevertheless, it does mark a change from the past and one that renders statistics of limited value.
If, aside from that, all you have is anecdotal evidence about jokes and blog comments to support your bold assertion then I think you shouldn’t be surprised to have some push back.
One last thing, Pete. You have your own blog. Can you please consider doing your blogging there? I understand that you want to leverage the big Kiwiblog readership to increase your own numbers but I think your obviousness is really starting to hack people off. It makes you look like a spammer and the only reason it doesn’t make KB intolerable is because you are the only one who seems to do it. If everybody with a blog did it, you would soon have a tragedy of the commons effect.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:54 am
Yesterday Tauhei Notts “told a rape joke”, Kea downplayed it and no one but me challenged it, although thumbs down and up were equal on four each. thedavincimode downplayed another rape joke situation and got 9 thumbs up, mine was the only one against.
No, everybody didn’t laugh, but some registered approval and others didn’t challenge it. That adds weight to the possibility that rape jokes are seen as normal and acceptable in our culture, and rapists may easily get that impression.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:55 am
This is interesting timing for me, Pete George.
Last week I was just having a discussion with my colleague. He said that he would rape a woman if he couldn’t get caught. I said that I couldn’t. I asked him why would anyone want to cause such pain to a woman for our own pleasure? He replied, “Because we’re men.” I have another colleague who has the exact same thinking as him. I seem to be in a minority here.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:59 am
” I seem to be in a minority here.” Well done, Carlos. Why don’t you pat yourself on the back for not being a prospective rapist? Clearly you and Pete George are both two of a few white knights who wouldn’t committ one of the worst crimes imaginable if you had a good chance.
Get a grip.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:00 am
P.G., do you realise how self-righteous and sanctimonious you sound? When in a hole, stop digging.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:04 am
Cato:
Police statistics show that nearly ten a day are reported, and it’s known that many more go unreported. That is far from rare.
It’s no coincidence that people who don’t like what I say complain about what I link to. It’s a way of trying to shut down things they don’t like.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:06 am
Oh bullshit. That wasn’t a “rape joke” that was an example of a sick joke…remember all those baby jokes?
Q: What’s red and can’t turn round in corridors?
A: A baby with a javelin through its head.
Ok, any of you that laughed, you’re enabling child abuse. Sorry about that.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:07 am
Pete George ” Kea downplayed it ” yes he did. Kea did not down play rape, but made an observation about black humour. I have worked in some difficult environments. It is common to use black humour as a way of coping.
A person who really considered rape ok would not see the humour in it. It is funny because it is wrong and terrible.
It is noted that you did not find it funny, which concerns me. Like many people who get on a soap box and preach morality, I suspect your dark side is darker than most. That would explain why you assume the worst about others. It is based on your own inner demons.
Sorry PG, but the rest of us are not like that.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:10 am
And Cato, your reaction to what Carlos said further emphasises the culture problem, where you diss him (and me) and say nothing about the colleague who would rape “because we’re men”, in fact you refer to the possibility of “a good chance” of rape.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:11 am
I’m not complaining because I don’t want to think about the subject you are raising. I have no preconceptions other than a general scepticism. Do you realise how you sound? My complaints are about what appears to be your excessive self-regard. If you want to be a blogger, go blog at your blog.
Try to get guest posts or write insightful things that other people want to link to voluntarily.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:14 am
Woman walks into a police station and says,
“I’ve been graped”
Officer says “That’s ‘raped’ ,not graped”
No she says “Graped,there was a bunch of them”.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:18 am
“[You] say nothing about the colleague who would rape…”
Could it be that most men would take it for granted that rape is enough of a terrible crime? That is so obvious that doesn’t need stating. What I find really weird is that you, and presumably Carlos, seem to think you are amazing moral paragons because you are against rape. In other words, you want praise for having the ‘courage’ to have absolutely normal moral beliefs.
I can’t believe that when I used the word “good” in the context of “good chance” clearly in the sense of “likelihood” or “probability” you lamely tried to twist that into stipulating that I have used it in the sense that “rape is good.” And that kind of thing is what you are relying on to advance your ‘culture of rape’ theme.
You’re absolutely unbelievable – and looking more and more like a real loser.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:19 am
James Stephenson – there’s a big difference with that sort of joke, everyone knows they shouldn’t put javelins through babies heads, not everyone knows they shouldn’t rape if they think they can get away with it.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:20 am
Rape culture: we’re living in it By Queen Of Thorns / March 7, 2013
“What is rape culture? If you ask people who are scared of feminism and radical concepts like “equality”, it’s all a big lie, it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s a meaningless jargon term which we women throw around to justify our seething hatred of all men.”
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/rape-culture-were-living-in-it/
Oh – so it International Woman’s Day yesterday
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:25 am
The thing that concerns me about this apparent “rape culture” is, if all men are so called rapists, does that make all women victims?
I for one become very annoyed at being labelled a victim.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:25 am
Well of course, not everyone. But the number of men that think its ok to rape if you can get away with it, is about the same as the number of men who think it’s ok to put babies in washing machines as a punishment.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:28 am
“[I]f all men are so called rapists.” Nobody is saying that all men are rapists here. What PG is simply saying, is that there are just a handful of men out there who are “anti-rape”; that he is one of them; and that he is on a crusade to teach the “pro-rape” male majority to turn away from the endemic exaltation of the crime.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:39 am
PG, you said:
“Police statistics show that nearly ten a day are reported, and it’s known that many more go unreported. That is far from rare.”
What the hell, man? Do you even think about the words you are using when you are writing them? If we had a ‘culture of rape’ then a large chunk of the female population would have been subjected to forcible rape. Have most of the women in your life been subjected to it? Simply reporting un-nuanced, aggregate numbers without any context doesn’t tell us much at all about the ‘culture’.
Boy, I can see why nobody reads your blog. If I wasn’t held hostage by you here, I wouldn’t.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:41 am
Incredible ! Cato summed PG & his ilk up very well with this well worded observation:
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:50 am
That’s one of the most extreme minimisations of rape that I’ve seen.
Number of reported babies put in washing machines as a punishment in the last five years: 1
Number of actual babies put in washing machines as a punishment: probably very few more than 1
Number of reported rapes in the last five years: about 15,000
Vote:Number of actual rapes: probably much higher
March 8th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Because the words are getting in the way, and the subject is on-going from one day to the next on GD:
Can we please have a definition of ‘Rape’?
Thanks
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:01 am
@ Cato
I believe I wasn’t clear enough. I didn’t mean that I was a minority in the sense that most men would rape if they could, but I wouldn’t. I meant a minority in this small circle of male colleagues. No need to presume that I think I’m especially moral for not wanting to rape. I still believe that most men don’t want to rape. I’m just a little shocked about my colleagues attitude.
I’ll be more careful in future with the way I write to avoid being misunderstood.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Carlos,
Duly noted.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:09 am
Pete George not all those “reported rapes” are rapes – most of them do not come to court and are not prosecuted because they are ambiguous. Some reported rapes are outright lies, perhaps as many as 30%.
Before you lock someone up and throw away the key you have to rigourously define the crime for which they are being convicted, the feminist definition of rape which you are using will not cut it
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:16 am
*sigh* pete, your 9:50 doesn’t come anywhere near ‘responding’ to the quote. You assume one actions are always accompanied with ones approval for those actions. Which is not the case. Most people who do wrong know this, but continue regardless.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:16 am
Pete George, who is the target audience for the performance your putting on ?
You have portayed -other- men as part of a rape culture, with your self as the exception. I suspect you think your views will make you popular with the ladies. Trouble is, most women have good intuition and are not so easily fooled.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 10:29 am
Oh do fuck off. Quite without Andrei’s point about how you’re going to define rape, you really do need to factor in the statistical frequency with which a so-inclinded perpetrator has an opportunity and that while rapists probably look to maximise their opportunities, kiddie-bashers thankfully will try to avoid being around kids as much as possible.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:01 am
* double sigh *
Pete George persists in claiming that he is the lone voice in the wilderness, a brave soul standing up and saying what needs to be said, gosh darn it.
He claims that people on Kiwiblog are playing down rape and joking about rape. He fails to understand that what many of us are questioning is this supposed rape culture. Not rape itself. There is a difference, just as there is a difference between drinking and a drinking culture.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:09 am
Winston Peters is “the Hugo Chavez of New Zealand politics” and his commitment to “buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser” is “no more than hot, populist air ” – according to Peter Dunne when asked what the United Future position would be on asset buy backs in any coalition agreements.
Neither National nor Labour governments would agree to re-nationalise the shares, so Peters is simply posturing.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:15 am
In 1994, three years before her death, journalist Christopher Hitchens made this documentary asking if Mother Teresa’s reputation was deserved.
Facts:
1. The Catholic Church and the brainless mass media loved her
2. She raised a ton of money, much of it from criminals who needed to recycle their image
3. The money she raised was used primarily for additional self promotion and the few people her Order did help received the most low level assistance imaginable.
It’s not a pretty story.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/religion-inc/mother-theresa—hells-angel.html
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:18 am
Rototuna schools announcement
So now we know the wealthy are being looked after whilst low decile schools are closed enmasse
Education Minister Hekia Parata is expected to announce plans to build two new schools in Hamilton’s rapidly expanding north-east at a public meeting today.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/8399448/Rototuna-schools-announcement
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:22 am
Pete – you forgot to link spam your comment there.
How else are you going to drive up those Google rankings?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Ok,it is in Aussie..but a Greenie is a Greenie “…under a radical Greens policy to make banks surrender a slice of their earnings in exchange for protection from insolvency…”
The Reds are eyeing the super…while the Greens are eyeing your savings…if the f**kers cant tax you enough…but i must admit i like the “protection from insolvency” part of the policy…once(if) the Greens get their mitts on the treasury,they will probably need all the protection they can get.
this side… Russell armed with ink…lay’s out his plans for the NZ economy.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:36 am
herniamutant
re Mother Theresa and the anti Catholic Hitchens
Bollocks!
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:44 am
I see former Italian PM Berlusconi is sentenced to a one-year jail term for publishing details of a wiretap.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:46 am
Hamish Rutherford is making test cricket look easy. He’s up to 136 not out now, and New Zealand is 209 for one, with the lead now at 42 and growing steadily. It’s great stuff for those of us who have endured some pretty tragic New Zealand performances over the years.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:51 am
hinamanu (2,245) Says:
March 8th, 2013 at 11:18 am
“Rototuna schools announcement
So now we know the wealthy are being looked after whilst low decile schools are closed enmasse ”
Which low-decile schools are closing? Or are you saying that the Hamilton students could be flown to Christchurch each day, in order to keep those Christchurch schools whose rolls have crashed open?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:52 am
Well now we have established that:
1. There is no AGW.
2. There is no “rape culture”.
3. Homos are not going to change marriage between men and women.
I guess we can all enjoy our Friday and look forward to the weekend
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Cato and Kea seem to be missing my comments and links (can’t please everyone all the time) so I’ve started a discussion on bitches of blogs.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:20 pm
“Cato and Kea seem to be missing my comments and links (can’t please everyone all the time) so I’ve started a discussion on bitches of blogs.”
You little link whore PG, your asking for it !
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Imagine saying 100yrs ago that ‘chimneysweeps will be a political force’…Where’s that chimneysweep Griff?
Vote:
March 8th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Eric Holder Insists Some BANKS ARE JUST TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE
When the Attorney General of the United States admits some banks are simply too big to prosecute, it might be time to admit we have a problem — and that goes for both the financial and justice systems.
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/eric-holder-insists-some-banks-are-just-too-big-to-prosecute-video/
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Socialist madness: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/07/17226935-maduro-chavez-body-to-be-permanently-displayed?lite
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:42 pm
If Shearer wants to get some credibility he needs to come out say what he would do instead, with the power companies. Cullen & Clarke happily collected the profits from the SOEs for 9-10 yrs not worrying about prices going up.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/16324098/kiwis-powerless-in-face-of-rising-electricity-bills-shearer/
hinamanu @ 12.24. I agree.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Great knock on debut by Rutherford Jnr…(A much better Test debut than his old man!)
I honestly thought this English team was World Class. They have turned out to be absolute rubbish…
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Rape is high in many socialist countries.
Because socialist countries are low on morality thresholds.
They have to be to allow tolerance of the government stealing the product of one man’s labour and giving it to another man in return for his vote.
The higher the moral threshold in a country, the less likely the population at large are to be seduced by the immorality of socialism.
That is why socialists must constantly attack morality and promote ideas like moral relativity. In order to incrementally attract more believers and more voters and more people accepting of its basic immorality.
Not that the disgusting weasel PG understands any of this. He is just (as usual) intent on a cowardly Marxist smear of males and patriarchal families in general.
Carlos- when “no one is watching” is the time you should least do anything immoral. Always try to be true to yourself.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
He’s talking bullshit. Holder’s thinking is probably more like this:
The bigger they are the more they can be forced to contribute to public finances. Which, if there’s cause, is nice.
.. however ..
The bigger they are, and irrespective of cause, the more likely they are to withdraw party campaign funding. We definitely can’t have that! , so we’ll claim they’re too big to prosecute
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Even if you think “no one is watching” – somebody is.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
This is what you are up against Red:
“Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory (1982) Signs Vol. 7, No.3Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.
p. 533
[edit] Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence (1983) Signs Vol. 8 No. 4”Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Red, I’ve got nothing against decent law abiding modern males, I’m glad we’ve become more civilised since the not very distant days where marital rape and beating the shit out of the missus were ignored by society and law enforcement as “just a domestic”.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
With all the confusion, maybe some of us need to go back to basics. Here’s an instructional video on how to pick up women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0bomkgXeDkE#!
Let me know if you pick up any tips.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Great News!
A New Zealand Judge [Justice John Priestley] today ordered the forfeiture of property / vehicles / assets with a combined value of $5 Million dollars from a Waikato moron [Stephen John Gray, 57] convicted of dealing in drugs. He was also jailed for 12 years.
Fan-bloody-tastic! Another moron off our streets. Good riddance. This Judge should take a bow.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8400360/Drug-kingpin-loses-millions-to-court
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
WTF??? The littany continues unabated.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Manolo, Pete George is only trolling us. He does not believe a word of what he is saying. He had nothing to say about this at all.
In response to a sexual assault. ( a real one, not a fake one or morning after guilt trip)
” Galloway later said she did not realise her victim was a police officer and she had “been doing this to men all night“.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Not often I support a Green MP but it is an outrage Elder is still on $1.3m. Elder says he cannot speak to the media but Ford says he can. His pay should be stopped. The Nat MPs should not oppose Elder being ordered to front up with some answers.
Time for Elder to front – MP
HAMISH RUTHERFORD AND VERNON SMALL
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/8397557/Time-for-Elder-to-front-MP
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
“……I’m glad we’ve become more civilised since the not very distant days where marital rape and beating the shit out of the missus were ignored by society and law enforcement as “just a domestic”……”
Or in your case Pete “just a useful idiot…”
The truth is, as more and more marriages and families break down, and more and more kids are not raised by their biological mother and father, criminal activity will arise and worsen.
Now I can already hear my critics hyperventilating, so let me say what I am not saying here. I am not saying family breakdown is the only variable in the equation. There are many factors at work when kids go off the rails. And I am not saying that if a kid grows up in a broken, blended or single-parent family, he or she will automatically become involved in crime. And I am not saying that two-parent families produce perfect children.
Nor am I saying that families where one of the biological parents is missing do not need help and support. Single parents need all the help they can get. But what I am saying is what common sense, along with a wealth of social science data, already suggests: kids are much less likely to become involved in criminal behaviour if raised by a mother and father, preferably cemented by marriage.
That is the overwhelming conclusion of some forty years of research into this issue. Not only are kids who are raised by their biological mother and father much less likely to get involved in crime, but they are also much less likely to use drugs, commit suicide, do poorly in school, or engage in other anti-social behaviours.
Here is a small sampling of the evidence. One study of 522 teenage girls found that girls in divorced families committed more delinquent acts (e.g., drug use, larceny, skipping school) than their counterparts in intact families.
A study of street-gangs reveals this linkage as well. In a recent book on the subject, Francis Ianni found that most gang members in America come from female-headed households. And a study of British communities found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every major type of crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary.
A study reported in Psychology Today found that “90 per cent of repeat adolescent firestarters live in a mother-only constellation”. A Michigan State University study of 72 adolescent murderers discovered that 75 per cent of them had divorced or never-married parents. And a study of 108 violent rapists, all repeat offenders, found that 60 per cent came from single-parent homes.
One study tracked every child born on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1955 for 30 years. It found that five out of six delinquents with an adult criminal record came from families where a parent – almost always the father – was absent.
An American author, reviewing the evidence, reports the following: “Poverty alone does not explain all of these effects. Indeed, poverty may not explain any of them”. He cites a 1988 study by Douglas Smith and G. R. Jarjoura which analysed victimisation data on over 11,000 individuals from three urban areas in New York, Florida and Missouri. They arrived at this startling conclusion: the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rates of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Neither poverty nor race seem to account very much for the crime rate, compared to the proportion of single parent families, Smith and Jarjoura found.
In Australia, a book by Alan Tapper highlights this connection between broken families and crime. In a study of rising crime rates in Western Australia, Tapper suggests that “family breakdown in the form of divorce and separation is the main cause of the crime wave”.
A longitudinal study of 512 Australian children found that there are more offenders coming from families of cohabiting than married couples, and there are proportionally more offenders who become recidivists coming from families of cohabiting than married couples. The study concludes, “The relationship between cohabitation and delinquency is beyond contention: children of cohabiting couples are more likely to be found among offenders than children of married couples”.
Those who work with juvenile offenders in Australia confirm these findings. One youth worker in Melbourne has spent nearly two decades working with homeless youth and young offenders. He says that “almost 100 per cent” of these kids are from “single parent families or blended families”. And a recent New Zealand study found that 64.6 per cent of juvenile offenders had no birth father present.
The connections between crime and family breakdown have been made by the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, which compared crime rates with out-of-wedlock birth rates from 1903 to 1993. It found that the “percentage of ex-nuptial births correlates significantly with both serious and violent crime at both one and two decades time lapse”.
Drug usage is also higher among those who come from broken homes. An American study of over 1700 youths found that adolescents growing up in a single-parent or stepparent family often feel estranged and consequently drift into drug use and abuse. And a New Zealand study of nearly 1000 children observed over a period of 15 years found that children who have watched their parents separate are more likely to use illegal drugs than those whose parents stay together.
The truth is, until we get serious about family breakdown and the erosion of marriage, the trends in youth crime will not disappear, but only get worse. By all means, deal with other factors, such as the steady stream of toxic entertainment found in our media. But until the real cause of family disintegration is dealt with, we will simply see more criminal activity amongst our young people.
“……I’m glad we’ve become more civilised since the not very distant days where marital rape and beating the shit out of the missus were ignored by society and law enforcement as “just a domestic”……”
How many rapists did you base that on Pete 5? 10? 11? 12?
If you disagree…then show us the court records Pete…..or stop commenting on Marriage and the welfare of women and children!
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Chuck Bird – I agree on Elder, he should have to explain and his continued salary is obscene from an SOE that has failed under his leadership.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:08 pm
@ Redbaiter
Thanks. Thankfully my conscience wouldn’t allow me to do such a thing. However, I’m saddened that many people only “be good” because of the law. I think a moral populace shouldn’t need as many laws as an immoral one. People’s conscience should be sensitive enough to know that if I rape, murder, steal from or assault someone, then that is wrong as I’m harming someone who doesn’t deserve to be harmed and hasn’t harmed me. However, it seems that there have always been humans who don’t have that same conscience sensitivity. I don’t know whether conscience is nature or nurture or a combination of both. My father did stuff that he thought was okay, but I would not do because I think it was wrong.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Great post Harriet.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Dotcom can sue NZ’s intelligence agency, court rules
A New Zealand court has sided with IT tycoon Kim Dotcom, confirming his right to sue the national spy agency for damages over illegally gathering intelligence on him.
http://rt.com/news/dotcom-spy-agency-lawsuit-932/
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Harriet, good post. Don’t hold your breath waiting for PG to show up. Your post indicates that kids raised by women, with no male influence, have the worst social outcomes. This does not support PG’s ramblings that women are “victims” and men are part of a damaging “rape culture” and a raft of other social ills.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
“Great post Harriet.’
Good thoughts indeed but kids are still being abused because the anti-smacking law is a sick joke implanted by single communist women with no experience in child rearing. The term ‘reasonable force was completely ignored and physical abuse was already illegal.
The anti smacking law is just a state ploy to take sovereignty of parents from their children. Nothing more, nothing less.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Harriet, I agree with you, apart from your unneccesary disses at me which detracted and distracted from your otherwise sensible and well researched comment.
Family violence is a big factor, both a cause of problems and as a result of problems. And influencing that significantly is drug (especially alcohol) abuse, once again both caused by and a result of famlie unit breakdowns.
Ignoring violence within families as “just a domestic” was as damaging to many kids and partners as breakups.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Just a wee note, people. You may wish to be aware that Pete George is posting about this on The Daily Blog, along with his interpretation of your comments.
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/07/rape-culture-were-living-in-it/
We are all apparently providing “a lot of prof of rape culture at KB yesterday and today, mostly by examples of abuse, denial, diversion and minimisation of the problem.”
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Appears you’ve gone to a lot of effort to research statistics which purport to correlate “family breakdown” with various social ills. Unfortunately it is all for nothing if you do not actually cite the studies you refer to. Anyone can say “a study says XYZ” with the hope that the mere mention of the word “study” lends credibility to what is being said.
But alas, you haven’t actually researched any such “studies” have you? Given that large sections of your post have been lifted verbatim from a post by Bill Muehlenberg, titled “The Dangers of Fatherlessness”, it would seem unlikely.
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/02/16/the-dangers-of-fatherlessness/
Unfortunately, it doesn’t even appear that Bill has referenced the studies he is citing. But even assuming all the vague references are accurate, what do they actually prove? As any climate skeptic will tell you: correlation doesn’t prove causation. Moreover, none of the statistics you quote actually contradict what Pete George said. Even if everything you proffered were true it could still be the case that we have simply traded one evil for another or equally that the two evils have nothing to do with each other.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
I’ve missed most of this “rape culture” stuff, but I presume you’re all talking about the stalwart supporters of Julian Assange?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
To a fair extent I think that’s true. Societal, financial and legal pressures often used to lock (mostly) women and children into marriages that could be any combination of oppressive, abusive and dangerous.
The pendulum needed to swing away from this and society then provided a way out.
Partly as a result of this and partly due to other societal changes the pendulum has swing too far twards too many loose relationships, an absence of relationships and a diffetrent type of mixed family relationships that tend to be more dysfunctional and potentially damaging than stable relationships.
We can’t and shouldn’t go back to how things were. What we have to do is look at addressing the problems we have now.
Something I heard John Banks say has a lot of merit – two essentials for children to have good beginings in life are unconditional love and a top class education. If we can find a way of moving more towards those ideals we will go a long way towards improving outcomes.
But Banks also conceded it wasn’t a quick fix (nothing is), it can take a generation to recover from dysfunctional damage.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Weihana, It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence. His claims are incredible and we would expect the evidence to support those claims to be very clear and compelling. So far he has produced nothing, other than to accuse those who challenge him of being part of a “rape culture”.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 3:34 pm
O how stupid. What is with people that makes them so precious? First my recollection is that Seth wasn’t joking about rape, he was making a parody of himself. Second, yes you damn well can make a joke about rape as you can about ANYTHING. There is no subject off limits for joking about, granted there’s always a time and a place. But people joke about death, about racism, about all sorts of things. Why not rape? Of course rape isn’t funny to anyone who has suffered it. Neither is death. Are all jokes about death off limits?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Agreed. But the point is that regardless of whether or not there is a “rape culture”, of what relevance are the statistics Harriet quotes? It’s possible for both of them to be right: that is it is possible that in times gone by marital rape and other abuses were rife, while it could also be true that “family breakdown” has caused the social ills Harriet claims.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 4:23 pm
What the hell, Pete George? Mischaracterise my criticisms of you on other blogs why don’t you? If you’re going to do that, at least be honourable enough to give the correct context to my criticisms. That is:
1. In absolute terms and relative to other countries, rape is a rare occurence. By that I mean that it is not an everyday occurance for most people. Nobody I know talks wistfully about committing those crimes. Acknowledgint that does not minimise the harm it causes to the individual victims at all.
2. Because rape usually occurs in the inherently private context of sex, statistics are of very limited use in giving us the full picture of much of anything.
3. You come across like a real fool for patting yourself on the back for having the ‘courage’ to denounce the crime of rape. In this respect, maybe I have got it wrong. Thinking of my own male family, friends and co-workers, I can’t think of any of them who wouldn’t intervene to try to prevent rape – even at the risk of their own safety. Maybe I am at fault here for generalising those attributes too widely in my mind.
I mean, it could be that you hang out exclusively with cowards and psychos who would tolerate such awful crimes and you really are a ‘voice in the wilderness’ on this issue in your own, grubbier, existence. What’s the alternative being that you are a sad little man with real delusions that you are brave for slandering everyone who is not you for contributing to a nebulous ‘culture of rape’.
Question: do you really believe that you’re a voice in the wilderness among men in being anti-rape? Do you really believe that a majority (or substantial minority) of New Zealand men are “pro-rape”. Or are you just an unprincipled hack?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Weihana, we do not know what we do not know. You can speculate anything on that basis. Maybe the number of unreported rapes are less than contemplated. Who knows. Maybe marital rape and other abuses were not rife in day gone by. Maybe men suffer more domestic abuse than women…We can go on in this manner, but it serves no purpose.
PG has accused an entire culture of being rape enablers. He has been particularly harsh on those that have questioned him. He has done this with no evidence. He has been provided evidence to show what a minute percentage of men commit rape. His response to those who provide evidence that diminishes his claims has been to accuse them of being prime examples of “rape culture” and accuse them of minimising rape ! All done with no evidence.
Harriet addressed a wider social issue and was not engaging PG directly on his claims.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
The Cuban government have praised Hugo Chavez saying that he embodied revolutionary socialism.
Do they mean dead and rotting from the inside?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Sonny Bill Williams has described his losing debut for the Sydney Roosters as toughafter his time spent in rugby “kicking stones with the pretty boys”.
No doubt, Williams will display his flair as he settles into a code he hasn’t played for five years but first up the All Blacks star wanted to focus on the basics.
What a waste of money excercise this wanker really was/is.
The NZRU should pay taxpayers back for wasting money on him and then using him to spruik our funds for the World Cup.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/8397744/Sonny-Bill-leaves-rugbys-pretty-boys-behind
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
HOLY PROSTITUTES
A man is driving down a deserted stretch of highway
when he notices a sign out of the corner of his eye…
It reads:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
10 MILES
He thinks this is a figment of his imagination and drives on without second thought.
Soon he sees another sign which reads:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
5 MILES
Suddenly he begins to realize that these signs are for real and drives past a third sign saying:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
NEXT RIGHT
His curiosity gets the best of him and he pulls into the drive. On the far side of the parking lot is a stone building with a small sign next to the door reading:
SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS
He climbs the steps and rings the bell. The door is answered by a nun in a long black habit who asks,
‘What may we do for you! my son?’
He answers, ‘I saw your signs along the highway and was interested in possibly doing business….’
‘Very well my son. Please follow me.’ He is led through many winding passages and is soon quite disoriented. The nun stops at a closed door and tells the man, ‘Please knock on this door.’
He does so and another nun in a long habit, holding a tin cup answers the door. This nun instructs, ‘Please place $100 in the cup then go through the large wooden door at the end of the hallway.’
He puts $100 in the cup, eagerly trots down the hall and slips through the door pulling it shut behind him.
The door locks, and he finds himself back in the parking lot facing another sign:
GO IN PEACE.
Vote:YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCREWED BY
THE SISTERS OF ST. FRANCIS.
SERVES YOU RIGHT, YOU SINNER
March 8th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Would this apply to many of New Zealand’s moral leaders?
Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4gf854dafydvwvy/Not%20Gay%202.jpg
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Little Johnny goes into the kitchen and sees his mother and, standing beside her, an identical copy of his mother – same face, same body, same hair, same clothes, same shoes, everything.
“Johnny! This is a robot!” screams one of the mothers. “She’s one of those replicants like in Blade Runner! Go and get Daddy’s shotgun and shoot her!”
“No way!” screams the other mother. “I’m your mother! She’s the replicant! Shoot her!”
Johnny examines them both, but has no way of knowing which is his real mother. After a moment’s thought, he runs out to fetch his father’s shotgun, goes into his own room and sits down at his gaming console. The mothers follow him in.
“How can you sit down and play silly games at a time like this?” says the first mother.
“Yeah, how can you play with your Xbox at a time like this?” says the second mother, whereupon Johnny shoots her head off and goes to hug his mother.
“How did you know?” she says, tears in her eyes. “How could you be so sure?”
“It had to be her. I know you haven’t a fucking clue what an Xbox is.”
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
I wonder how many people visit KB each day and read anything?
It’s not really that many, is it?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:09 pm
LR&C
Many more than you think. Go to the bottom of the Kiwiblog Homepage & there’s an icon for “Sitemeter”.
The site stats may surprise you.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
I wonder how may people visit KB each day and post rubbish like this?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/general_debate_7_march_2013.html#comment-1108228
It’s not really that many, is it?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Pete George: I have to agree that it’s rude, if not intellectually dishonest, to take comments made at one blog (having stirred up a hornet’s nest, for the apparent purpose of provoking those comments, but without having offered a substantiated argument of your own), and then take it upon yourself to “summarise” or “paraphrase” or “report” (take your pick) those comments on another blog. I also think (subjective impression) your commenting style at The Daily Blog is slightly different compared to your style here. One could draw various uncharitable conclusions from all of this, but I will throw it over to you. What exactly are you trying to achieve?
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
This has been done about the Standard on Kiwiblog for some time.
To be fair, it was an issue that was on the Daily Blog about rape culture and the nature of a discussion on Kiwiblog was a relevant reference. To seek out comment on a topic as a research exercise is not of itself dishonest.
Surely those posting on DPF’s blog should realise that.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:12 pm
http://screencast.com/t/eYBjwKmcz
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Excellent!.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Lmao @ crusaders
Try getting some more skinny fly halves in the back line. The sort who “never make mistakes”.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Only in the New Zealand group could the Crusaders finish last.
Vote:March 8th, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Rodders (1,711)
March 8th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
wow… you went to the effort of coding a link to that post… I’m deeply flattered. I’ve got a fan… how cool is that?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 7:18 am
Nostradamus, do you think all bloggers who take comments and “summarise” or “paraphrase” or “report” them at another blog are rude and intellectually dishonest? Becasue it’s standard blog practice. And journalists have been doing it since newspapers were invented.
I’ve been very open and honest. I have been commenting across blogs for a long time. I get criticised for the frequency I provide links showing what I do and where I do it. You and others knew where I was commenting because you followed the links you grizzle about. To act surprised now and saying “look what he’s doing!” seems a bit disingenuous.
Again, why should this be a surprise? I’m sure your style would be “slightly different” if you commented at The Daily Blog or The Standard or Whale Oil. Your comment at 8.24pm is more than “slightly diffferent” in style to other comments you’ve made here.
One could draw various uncharitable conclusions from all of this, but I will throw it over to you. What exactly are you trying to achieve?
I find it interesting to see who has attacked me over this, who has reacted and how they have reacted. Few have openly questioned the nature of comments directed at me that have included extreme abuse and lies – but that’s not surprising, who would want to volunteer to be a target like I have been?.
Nostradamus, I have been “summarised” and “paraphrased” on this issue here with blatant misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty – either through ignorance of what I have actually said or deliberately lying in order to attack and discredit me. But that obviously isn’t something you are bothered about.
I pushed boundaries on this and I knew it would make some people uncomfortable. That was my intention. I think our violence and rape cultures have been proven by the nature of some of the reactions. Some people obviously don’t it being pointed out that they are examples of something they are trying to deny. Too bad. I know I won’t change some of your opinions but I hope I have provoked some thinking amongst the more open minded.
One thing I haven’t been accused of on this is that old favourite diss, sitting on the fence.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 7:21 am
LR & C – I wouldn’t go so far as to describe myself as a fan of regurgitation, but each to their own…
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 10:33 am
I’m sorry to say this, but I can see why lprent banned you Pete. Because not only do you not get it, you appear incapable of accepting that you’re wrong.
You see yourself as some sort of Lone Ranger, a lone voice in the wilderness standing up for what’s right and true. And you feel that when you’re criticised, it vindicates you. It proves what you’ve been saying. You stand a little taller in your triumph, quietly smug in the knowledge that you’re right.
The problem is, you’re not.
You haven’t made people uncomfortable, you’ve just pissed them off. Because you have erroneously accused us of being part of a so-called “rape culture”. You have actually accused people of some pretty bloody nasty things on your blog. That this “rape culture” might just be an over-reaction by some people to what is, undoubtedly, a very real problem – the actual act of rape – never seems to occur to you. You seem incapable of accepting that you might have it wrong. And that the annoyance of some people might be due to the fact that you have accused them of being part of an extremely nasty culture which may not actually even exist in New Zealand to the degree that some people claim (except in their own fevered imaginations.
To paraphrase you, I know you won’t change your opinions but I did hope you might at least have been open minded enough to think about that possibility. I wish you were mature enough to think through some of the more sensible comments that have been made, Pete, but I fear you’re not. I fear you are incapable of accepting that you might just have made a bad mistake on this.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 10:59 am
Graham, couldn’t have said it better than myself (and won’t try).
I will just add that i read today about the UN finally growing a pair about the real and observable.”rape culture” in the DR Congo. How could one not feel slandered when he is accused of supporting something like that just because he finds Pete George intolerably and unjustifiably self-regarding?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 11:07 am
Graham, thank you very much for explaining so clearly your position (and mine).
Vote:Hell will freeze over before P.G. admits any mistake on his part.
March 9th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
This is a blog which brings out reactionary attitudes to the words liberal and feminist, the term Maori Treaty rights, so it is not going to be instructive as to the wider culture.
So there were a lot of defensive posts on the rape culture meme. Some of the comments surprisingly mimicked views of some Moslems – an irony given that there is a dismissive attitude to allowing immigration by Moslems because they are not of our world view. Saying that were asking to being raped or placing themselves at risk of being raped simply for behaving as many young men hope they will – being out socialising and drinking with males. The classic was the line from Andrei was that these women did not deserve to be brides.
No one was stepping in and saying – there is no blame to the victim and no excuse for the rapist. Given the greater emphasis on false complaints – the tone was disturbing. While it did not confirm the rape culture meme (this is just a blog), it did show that a group of men and a few moralistic females could be reactionary and defensive on this topic – turn on anyone raising the issue.
It was if Pete George was a Scandinavian blonde alone at night walking past a group of Moslem immigrants and was asking for it. Rape is an act of predatory violence. A form of bullying.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 2:53 pm
SPC can I put it to you that nobody on this thread either actually blamed the victim of any rape for the terrible crime against her? Can i further put it to you that scepticism of Pete George’s claim that NZ men other than him are uniquely prone to cause rape through a culture of rape does not imply tolerance of rape?
Lastly, do you know anyone who has been a victim of that crime? I do. I don’t know how she would take your comparing responsive criticism of Pete George on an internet blog with a vicious gang rape. I would suspect that if she tought anyone here had minimised rape – it would have been you just then.
Pull your head in. I think an apology is due.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
graham, there appears to be quite a it about this that you don’ get yourself, and obviously others as well.
I know I’ve pushed boundaries on this, provoked reaction and provoked some thought (I hope). I don’t feel any need to apologise.
graham – would you admit if you got anything wrong?
I don’t – you can speak forself but don’t make presumptions about how I see myself. To be frank you haven’t got a fucking idea about much what I think and how I see things.
I see myself as one of many voices in the blogosphere. I’m well aware that “what’s right” appears differently to different people. I try to promote and provoke different ideas and views and arguments.
False assumptions again.
When I’m criticised I judge whether I think it’s justified or not and learn from it accordingly. Sometimes it may prove what I’m saying, sometimes it disproves it, most often it modifies my view.
I don’t ever feel like I triumph, political debate is always going to be a work in progress with no clear winners and losers.
Different ways of saying similar things.
Are you certain you have it right? Are you incapable of accepting you may not have it all right on this?
I have thought through some of the more sensible comments. And I have also observed many less sensible comments that add to the picture.
A bad mistake? What damage has been done apart from a few people getting pissed off?
I think it would be a bad mistake to pretend we don’t have significant problems in New Zealand’s culture of violence (including rape).
I think it would be a bad mistake to give tacit approval to what thugs and rapists think is ok if they can get away with it. I suggest you read Carlos’ comment again.
Violence and rape have been a part of western culture for a very long time, and some of that remains. And we all play a part in our culture, by our attitudes and actions and inactions.
Perhaps you are incapable of even considering you may have some of this wrong? Do you think you are totally right and I’m totally wrong?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Cato, na I won’t pull my head in, I don’t fear anyone cutting it off because I don’t agree with them … . I suppose I have not been the victim of physical violence myself.
The talk of women who drank and who invited sexual attention as not being worthy of being brides was just part of the moralistic tone adopted by some whereas others proffered advice about how women could reduce risk to themselves (because drunk men could misbehave) – and the greater concern was for victims of false complaints – all a little too much like the old line about whether the raped woman was a virgin, and if not, was she really the victim …
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Pete – you are mostly wrong. Your essential point is that we have cultural problems that lead to too many rapes. Fine. Let’s leave aside where we stand in comparison to other countries and define terms. Articulate your program a little more.
What’s an acceptable level of rape for you, Pete? How many per day? Would just 100 rapes a year show there wasn’t a culture of rape?
Of course not. Because one rape is too many.
The point is – you keep patting yourself on the back for showing the normal human reaction to rape (disgust). You havent done anything useful about it – just proclaim your braveness on an internet blog and tell a few half baked anecdotes that reveal nothing else than that you hang out with people who think rape is a joke.
For the love of God…
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:24 pm
That’s your opiniion, not a fact.
You have absolutely no idea what I have or haven’t done about it.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:31 pm
SPC – rereading this thread I can’t find any examples of anyone blaming rape on drunk females. The debate is whether NZ men, by virtue of our culture, have a special propensity towards sex crime.
Also, do you stand by your own conflation of criticising Pete George with gang raping a woman?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“You have absolutely no idea what I have or haven’t done about it.”
Actually, that’s true. All i have seen is your preening and misguided self congratulation in the comments section of a blog. Please enlighten me on the rest of your program or whether that’s it.
Also, do you agree with SPC’s characterisation of scepticism about you to be tantamount to rape itself?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
“rereading this thread I can’t find any examples of anyone blaming rape on drunk females.”
It was implied in the GD thread on Thursday.
That effectively blames the behaviour of women, including the behaviour of getting drunk. If not getting drunk and staying fully clothed prevented men from raping then there shouldn’t be any rape in Muslem cultures, should there.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
There were more examples than the one cited above.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Cato, why the David Brent line insult to PG elsewhere? Is going after PG supposed to be a way to earn popularity with other posters here?
Playing the hard man on the board does not sit with the ideologist of the right role. Well it would be but only if it is the Inquisitor role you are going for.
As for your distortions of what I posted earlier, is this what happens when people don’t obey your warning to pull their head in – you are going to go after them?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
I agree that that comment – from another thread on another day – is offensive. I have never suggested that anyone other than raptists are to blame for rape. The issue today is whether your claims about the broader culture and your own program to combat it astack up.
To that end, i see that you have yet to decry SPC for comparing combox criticism of you to a most brutal rape. Doesn’t that minimise rape? Or do you think its accurate to describe your own victimhood that way?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Pete George linked to a post about himself. Clearly he wanted to make his internet activities a topic for discussion.
I thought it was inaccurate and offered what I thought was a better example on the basis of his above comments.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Cato, you presumably know the Sermon on the Mount well, where angry words were associated with a consequence in violence and then murder. Moslems justify rape on the basis of the womens behaviour, the women in daring to defy their cultural order somehow is said to invite their violence. Does PG in daring to defy the blog group party line by contending against it, then deserve and invite a form of group bullying.
The related issue is the blog line against Moslem immigrants because they are not part of our culture, – is this culture tolerant?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I also have no idea why you reached for a rape metaphor when the discussion was centred on that very, sensitive topic.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:16 pm
Hah – Pete George that is not “blaming rape on drunk females “that is pointing out a reality of life”.
If you wear an expensive wrist watch and get pissed in the French Quarter of New Orleans you are likely to be releived of it – is pointing this sad fact of life out also offensive?
You are really are a dork.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Cato (and Kea) kept distorting things I said and made things up that were untrue, there’s not much chance of explaining things rationally to either of them.
But I’ll try and explain something.
Two years ago I was at Stopping Violence (an organisation that works at the coal face/bottom of the cliff) talking about how to address the culture of violence that exists in New Zealand.
I said that while I wasn’t a part of the problem because I wasn’t violent I wanted to help. I was quietly but firmly told that if I hadn’t done anything about it I was a part of the problem, part of the culture. I felt unfairly accused and fairly pissed off. But I went away and thought about it.
I thought back through my life and could remember things. A typical example – I was at rugby training one night and a teammate said something like “the missus gave me some lip last night so I sorted her out, she’ll be wearing sunnies for a few days”. And I winced and remained silent. And his missus likely went on being sorted out – until she left him a few years later. At least she survived, although no doubt mentally scarred, if not physically.
And my silence contributed, in a small way. Perhaps if I had had the guts to speak up[ and say “fuck that, it’s not on, that’s a crap way to deal with things” he (and others) may have started to learn that giving the bash wasn’t what everyone did, and eventually they might come to realise it was a bastard of a thing to do, caused problems and solved nothing.
And that may have saved his missus some major grief, and him, and his marriage, and his kids may have grown up without believing violence was a normal part of family life.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Cato, closing ones ears when this is convenient is not uncommon. And yes of course discovering the usefulness of a secular PC is also convenient in some debates. It just shows your adaptability, there are many means to an end.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Ok Pete – thanks for providing some context around this. I personally think I would stand for a man hitting a woman. Even a mate – and I was a rugby player too, you know. None of my teammates acted like that (as far as I know). Perhaps it is a generational thing.
Clearly that encounter affected you in some way, however, and I’m not surprised you feel the need to atone for your prior act of cowardliness. All I ask is that in future you lead with that self-criticism rather than come out swinging at people you don’t know.
I’m going to shut off from this topic because we are clearly at an impasse.
I note that you have yet to tick SPC off for his own rape minimisation – though it’s certainly worse than anything I have ever said.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Cato, FFS do you still not get it, do you want to tick Jesus off for comparing angry words to murder in the Sermon on the Mount for “murder” minimisation.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Cato, I gave that as an example. Perhaps you have led a perfect life and have never left something undealt with that should have been.
However saying you are going to shut off and then continuing to criticise is not being perfect. I haven’t paid much attention to what you say SPC said, you have misinterpreted a number of things I have said quite badly so i didn’t put much credibility on what you claimed.
I note you have yet to tick Kea and Andre etc off for their rape minimisation, you seem to be very selective about who you try to hold to account.
Andre is still totally blind to blaming victims and making excuses for perpetrators of rape and theft.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Oh yes. Sorry. Didn’t realise you were comparing yourself to Jesus there SPC.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
See at 3.59 Pete.
I have maintained the whole time that the only way men should behave is by only initiating sex when they are in a trusted, committed relationship. If they do that, they can (usually) be sure not to have any issues with consent. I just fail to see how that comment is ‘rape enabling’.
As for questions of ‘perfection’ I hardly think it takes moral perfection to express disapproval of wife beating. I would suspect that, for most men – perfect or not – it would just seem like the decent and obvious thing to do – especially if its not a hypothetical comment like your team mate.
Maybe it was a different era, and it was once acceptable to just shrug your shoulders. It’s not now. I am glad you have come around but I’m just not sure you deserve that much praise for it.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
And a great example of how one voice prepared to speak up against a step too far in a culture of violence and can make a major difference is here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/the_drone_filibuster.html
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:56 pm
What is your malfunction Pete George?
NOBODY IS MAKING EXCUSES FOR ANYONE!!!!!!!!
In this wicked world there are things you can do to reduce your chances of being a victim of crime – Duh
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 4:58 pm
“It was [as] if Pete George was a Scandinavian blonde alone at night walking past a group of Moslem immigrants and was asking for it.”
Was that an acceptable comparison Pete? It was made in your name.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:05 pm
That’s extremely naive or ignorant. It now seems common for mates to kick victims in the head as well as the kinghitter. And more often the perps and mates are female. It’s widely acknowledged that there is still a terrible culture of violence in New Zealand.
I’ve seen violence advocated as a solution frequently on Kiwiblog. Maybe you haven’t noticed that at all Cato, because I haven’t noticed you speaking against it. There was some quite violent language on a thread you were participating in a couple of days ago. Maybe you only see wrong in select targets.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Cato, how is comparing ones argument to one Jesus used, comparing oneself to Jesus? QED. You do know what QED means don’t you?
My comment no more miminised rape than his did murder. Yet you want only one of us to be held accountable for it. Is that not hypocrisy?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Andre – so if a church brazenly displays valuable ornaments and someone steals them it’s the church’s fault? If someone throws a rock through a stained glass window it’s the church’s fault for providing a tempting target?
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Maybe. Could be I live a sheltered life with decent family, friends, colleagues and team mates.
Judge me if you will, PG, for allegedly not speaking out. But I promise I will never bite my lip if a friend tells me he beat up his girlfriend.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Cato, what about mob behaviour do you not understand – the topic was rape culture.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
I think this thread speaks for itself now. Seeya.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
PS I just note that your claim I have been soft on alleged violence advocated on this blog seems incongruous against your earlier, repeated protestation that we could not take other countries crime statistics into account when determining if NZ is particularly bedevilled by a “culture of rape.” By your own logic, either you chose to do something about real violence or you didn’t. You didn’t. I am glad you are contrite.
Vote:March 9th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
Pete George:
Wow, with your 7:18am response to me, I think you’ve just morphed into Philu. I haven’t contributed to this debate, and was simply offering my views, as a passive bystander. Your response was, frankly, over-the-top and shows that you are particularly sensitive on this subject.
That isn’t what I said.
You seem to have missed the important qualification in what I said: “(having stirred up a hornet’s nest, for the apparent purpose of provoking those comments, but without having offered a substantiated argument of your own)“.
The assessment I made yesterday, having read through the thread, was that you’d come charging onto a Kiwiblog thread for two days in a row, making sweeping assertions, which you failed to substantiate when repeatedly asked to do so. That was, as I say, my assessment – others clearly seem to agree.
Again, that isn’t what I said.
Unlike you, apparently, I don’t trawl across multiple blogs. I have a busy life and Kiwiblog is pretty much the only one I read. I didn’t know where you were commenting, except for Graham’s link. Others may not have known either, except for Graham’s link.
The issue is that you presumed to “summarise” and “paraphrase” what others have said, as somehow supporting an argument you’ve yet to substantiate, all apparently for the purpose of getting kudos at another blog. That, in my view, is not good blog ettiquette. Your behaviour was different from, say, posting a link to specific comments at Kiwiblog that, in your view, backed up your position. Instead, you purported to “summarise” and “paraphrase” them. I suspect the distinction is lost on you. But considering that you bang on about blog ettiquette all the time, I would have expected a bit more intellectual honesty from you.
I don’t comment at other blogs. But I’m sure my commenting style would be the same – expressing my views, and not playing to the local crowd. My 8:24pm comment was, I believe, balanced and not over-the-top. So, no, not more than slightly different in style to other comments I’ve made here. I’ll see if anyone else agrees with your assessment on that.
<blockquote
I find it interesting to see who has attacked me over this, who has reacted and how they have reacted. Few have openly questioned the nature of comments directed at me that have included extreme abuse and lies – but that’s not surprising, who would want to volunteer to be a target like I have been?.
Nostradamus, I have been “summarised” and “paraphrased” on this issue here with blatant misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty – either through ignorance of what I have actually said or deliberately lying in order to attack and discredit me. But that obviously isn’t something you are bothered about.
I pushed boundaries on this and I knew it would make some people uncomfortable. That was my intention. I think our violence and rape cultures have been proven by the nature of some of the reactions. Some people obviously don’t it being pointed out that they are examples of something they are trying to deny. Too bad. I know I won’t change some of your opinions but I hope I have provoked some thinking amongst the more open minded.
Again, you’ve completely missed the point. As I said, I am not getting involved in the substance of the debate. Others commenting on your views have, as far as I know, expressed them here and not run off to other blogs to do so. So all this is a bit of a smokescreen. You do seem to be holding yourself up as a shining beacon of… virtue? Fine, but at least substantiate your argument, and stop trying to frame others’ arguments in a way that serves your own agenda on other blogs.
That’s not the issue here.
Pete, I haven’t agreed with everything you’ve said at Kiwiblog, but at least we’ve been able to discuss issues in a rational way. On this issue, for some reason, you’ve completely morphed into Philu. The fact that you see everyone who points this out as somehow demonstrating the truth of your “arguments” (whatever they are) doesn’t paint you in a good light.
Vote:March 10th, 2013 at 6:34 am
The fact that you see everyone who points this out as somehow demonstrating the truth of your “arguments” (whatever they are) doesn’t paint you in a good light.
The actual fact is you’re wrong, I don’t, as I’ve already explained.
I’ve explained my views a lot this topic, in fact it is my views that some have strongly disagreed with rather than failure to substantiate. There’s plenty of evidence of this.
I note that you haven’t argued about the message, just the messenger.
Is likening me to Philu another way of trying to build crowd support for discrediting? I could accuse you of morphing into Redbaiter but that would be as innaccurate and irrelevant to the issue.
Vote: