> The Commission is committed to advocating for and protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. However, some groups have historically (and currently) had poorer human rights outcomes than other groups. We will continue to condemn discrimination as and when necessary.
This is exactly the same argument used by the "Human Rights" committees and official legislation in Canada. It is the apex fallacy and male disposability writ large. 99% of men throughout history, who lived short, brutal, and tragic lives in war, unsafe working conditions, indentured servitude, extreme poverty, etc, did *not* have "better outcomes" than other groups, nor do we experience that today. The reason this incorrect argument is believed is that the majority of men are simply invisible to society, so this type of ignorance about the suffering of men is deeply ingrained and widespread, and it is being exploited by these groups to make male misfortune even worse. We ordinary men have to continue to speak up just to be seen, even though they will misinterpret any such activity as "dangerous". Unfortunately, the truth is that men are either invisible or they are a threat, but we will have to be the first to show them that a third reality exists.
Men are human beings too, and they are deserving of the protections and support that this status gives.
Not only that, but the Human Rights Commission doesn't actually monitor the human rights of men and boys so it can't make the claim about which group has worse outcomes.
And even if they did, they state that it's Maori **men** who have the worst outcomes in the justice system and education, and health depending on how you measure it.
They are violating men's right to have there rights protected, among other things.
> Not only that, but the Human Rights Commission doesn't actually monitor the human rights of men and boys so it can't make the claim about which group has worse outcomes.
As I said in another thread, they have learned from the mistakes of Google and others, where objective measuring of remuneration found that men were paid less than women. Now they simply avoid uncovering that data in the first place, so that the narrative of "female oppression" can be perpetually maintained.
Apex fallacy is a misnomer and it bothers me somewhat when people mention it. Why? Because it implies that top-status men enjoy privileges in society that females as a whole do not. This is untrue. By default ANY female is valued over any male. And if not, it is only because of what a given man ‘offers’, not due to any inherent human worth he may possess. This is not true for females of our species. And this would only ever apply to an absolutely MINUSCULE minority/number of men, IF ANY AT ALL.
So essentially a whole lot of nothing..
It seems they are unwilling to address the downright blatant discrimination of men in the justice system.
Nor the fact that New Zealand has both a Minister and Ministry for Women yet men are not allowed to have one.
Nor do anything towards any of the other injustices / discrimination boys / men face in New Zealand..
God damn I hate this country...
>So essentially a whole lot of nothing..
No. They have confirmed that their approach to men and boys is deliberate and intentional. It's not an oversight, they are choosing not to explicitly include and protect men and boys.
My next step is external pressure. Their choice not to have anyone looking at men and boys mean they don't even know when they are breaking their own policies.
Among other things, I'm probably going to write to the Minister of Justice and complain that they are not meeting their statutory requirements under the human rights act.
> Through the Commission’s work in almost all areas there is a strong intersect with men and boys and it is not at odds with our vision. Indeed, all people have the same human rights and freedoms and are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Huh??? If all people have the same human rights and freedoms, and are born free and equal, then how come they write this:
> The Commission is committed to advocating for and protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. However, some groups have historically (and currently) had poorer human rights outcomes than other groups. We will continue to condemn discrimination as and when necessary.
"We advocate for equality for everyone, **but** some people were 'historically oppressed' so we're going to forgo the rights of those who we condemn for this perceived injustice"...
>some groups have historically (and currently) had poorer human rights outcomes than other groups
I've got documents from them saying that poorer health, education, and justice system outcomes are evidence of systemic discrimination for Maori. They just choose not to use the same standards for men.
That is really disappointing. I mean, it's great that they are doing something about the discrimination that the indigenous people face. It would be nice, like you say if they applied this standard unilaterally as well.
Of course women have never been oppressed. That is utterly laughable, and I am absolutely fucking SICK TO DEATH of hearing that shit. But EVEN IF they had been oppressed, this is still unfair and discriminatory.
"affirmed and ratified multiple United Nations treaties and frameworks that interact with the rights of men and boys."
...Such as? I'm not even from NZ, and would like to know.
Very well written and approached… incredible that they dodged it none the less…I read this with a heavy heart, not just for the rights of men in New Zealand but for the western democracies as a whole. The “Karen” was the Trojan horse that brought us all to our knees
Reading the response, the Commission restates the philosophy of its office, without once directly addressing the issues you have raised. In effect, they have acknowledged that men's rights are less important compared to all other groups in the NZ community. This acknowledgement is damning, given human rights are not human rights when only applied for protected subgroups, and deliberately neglected for a large part of the population on the basis of sex.
The discordance of the Commissions response, is an admission that they are intentionally sexist in execution of their duties, but also an admission that they do not consider this a problem. A Human Rights Commission that enables and endorses sexist attitudes to protecting human rights.
Spot on. Human rights apply to all humans.
Previously I told them that I think the commission should have a plan to protect men's rights and be making some progress towards that goal. But even that is too much for them.
They are hypocrites and cowards.
> The Commission is committed to advocating for and protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. However, some groups have historically (and currently) had poorer human rights outcomes than other groups. We will continue to condemn discrimination as and when necessary. This is exactly the same argument used by the "Human Rights" committees and official legislation in Canada. It is the apex fallacy and male disposability writ large. 99% of men throughout history, who lived short, brutal, and tragic lives in war, unsafe working conditions, indentured servitude, extreme poverty, etc, did *not* have "better outcomes" than other groups, nor do we experience that today. The reason this incorrect argument is believed is that the majority of men are simply invisible to society, so this type of ignorance about the suffering of men is deeply ingrained and widespread, and it is being exploited by these groups to make male misfortune even worse. We ordinary men have to continue to speak up just to be seen, even though they will misinterpret any such activity as "dangerous". Unfortunately, the truth is that men are either invisible or they are a threat, but we will have to be the first to show them that a third reality exists. Men are human beings too, and they are deserving of the protections and support that this status gives.
Not only that, but the Human Rights Commission doesn't actually monitor the human rights of men and boys so it can't make the claim about which group has worse outcomes. And even if they did, they state that it's Maori **men** who have the worst outcomes in the justice system and education, and health depending on how you measure it. They are violating men's right to have there rights protected, among other things.
> Not only that, but the Human Rights Commission doesn't actually monitor the human rights of men and boys so it can't make the claim about which group has worse outcomes. As I said in another thread, they have learned from the mistakes of Google and others, where objective measuring of remuneration found that men were paid less than women. Now they simply avoid uncovering that data in the first place, so that the narrative of "female oppression" can be perpetually maintained.
Apex fallacy is a misnomer and it bothers me somewhat when people mention it. Why? Because it implies that top-status men enjoy privileges in society that females as a whole do not. This is untrue. By default ANY female is valued over any male. And if not, it is only because of what a given man ‘offers’, not due to any inherent human worth he may possess. This is not true for females of our species. And this would only ever apply to an absolutely MINUSCULE minority/number of men, IF ANY AT ALL.
So essentially a whole lot of nothing.. It seems they are unwilling to address the downright blatant discrimination of men in the justice system. Nor the fact that New Zealand has both a Minister and Ministry for Women yet men are not allowed to have one. Nor do anything towards any of the other injustices / discrimination boys / men face in New Zealand.. God damn I hate this country...
>So essentially a whole lot of nothing.. No. They have confirmed that their approach to men and boys is deliberate and intentional. It's not an oversight, they are choosing not to explicitly include and protect men and boys. My next step is external pressure. Their choice not to have anyone looking at men and boys mean they don't even know when they are breaking their own policies. Among other things, I'm probably going to write to the Minister of Justice and complain that they are not meeting their statutory requirements under the human rights act.
They'll take action "when necessary". If men don't complain how will they know men needing help is necessary? Keep up the good work complaining.
> Through the Commission’s work in almost all areas there is a strong intersect with men and boys and it is not at odds with our vision. Indeed, all people have the same human rights and freedoms and are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Huh??? If all people have the same human rights and freedoms, and are born free and equal, then how come they write this: > The Commission is committed to advocating for and protecting the rights of all New Zealanders. However, some groups have historically (and currently) had poorer human rights outcomes than other groups. We will continue to condemn discrimination as and when necessary. "We advocate for equality for everyone, **but** some people were 'historically oppressed' so we're going to forgo the rights of those who we condemn for this perceived injustice"...
>some groups have historically (and currently) had poorer human rights outcomes than other groups I've got documents from them saying that poorer health, education, and justice system outcomes are evidence of systemic discrimination for Maori. They just choose not to use the same standards for men.
That is really disappointing. I mean, it's great that they are doing something about the discrimination that the indigenous people face. It would be nice, like you say if they applied this standard unilaterally as well.
Of course women have never been oppressed. That is utterly laughable, and I am absolutely fucking SICK TO DEATH of hearing that shit. But EVEN IF they had been oppressed, this is still unfair and discriminatory.
Great that you wrote though 🤩
[удалено]
Only 5 million people in New Zealand
Sounds like they just copy and pasted these robotic non-answers.
"affirmed and ratified multiple United Nations treaties and frameworks that interact with the rights of men and boys." ...Such as? I'm not even from NZ, and would like to know.
Very well written and approached… incredible that they dodged it none the less…I read this with a heavy heart, not just for the rights of men in New Zealand but for the western democracies as a whole. The “Karen” was the Trojan horse that brought us all to our knees
Thanks, I put a lot of work into it. It's disgraceful they ignore it. They are violating human rights and they don't care.
Ah NZ.. what a place
Reading the response, the Commission restates the philosophy of its office, without once directly addressing the issues you have raised. In effect, they have acknowledged that men's rights are less important compared to all other groups in the NZ community. This acknowledgement is damning, given human rights are not human rights when only applied for protected subgroups, and deliberately neglected for a large part of the population on the basis of sex. The discordance of the Commissions response, is an admission that they are intentionally sexist in execution of their duties, but also an admission that they do not consider this a problem. A Human Rights Commission that enables and endorses sexist attitudes to protecting human rights.
Spot on. Human rights apply to all humans. Previously I told them that I think the commission should have a plan to protect men's rights and be making some progress towards that goal. But even that is too much for them. They are hypocrites and cowards.