Home > Issues > Men and  the Law > Collective Misandric Psychosis

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Collective Misandric Psychosis

© Peter Zohrab 2005

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map


Sexual equality (usually called "gender equality') in Western countries is non-existent, because men do not complain enough about discrimination against them, and Western societies suffer from an insane level of man-hatred (Collective Misandric Psychosis). Discrimination against men is just not taken seriously.


Domestic Violence

I will give four examples of man-hatred (Misandry) as regards Domestic Violence – one from the police, two from the Family Court, and one concerning a Men’s Rights activist, who should have known better.

  1. On November 19th 1999, I went to see Mr. J. J. Taylor, Family Violence Prevention Coordinator at Police national headquarters, Wellington, New Zealand. I handed him a copy of the Fiebert bibliography, then spoke about the six (minor) workplace assaults I had been the victim of over the past 12 years at the hands of three females. He covered his mouth with his hand as if he was covering an itch to smile. Certainly, the expression in his eyes suggested he was smiling! It was shocking to see this reaction from someone in his position in the field of domestic violence….Then Mr. Taylor mentioned the … New Zealand survey on this topic – "Findings About Partner Violence" by Moffitt, Caspi and Silva (1996), which showed the same thing as the overseas studies – that women hit men at least as often as men hit women. Then Mr. Taylor came out with his most telling statement. What he said was more or less that you can't just count "hits" in that way, and that, in one case referred to by Moffitt (et al), the woman had kicked the man because he was holding her by the throat. (He was implying, of course, that she was acting in self-defence). So I asked Mr. Taylor why the man had held the woman by the throat, but he just replied, "Because he was assaulting her !" The point here was that it had obviously never occurred to Mr. Taylor that the man might have had a reason – a provocation, even – for having grabbed her by the throat. He had excused the woman’s kicking of the man by the fact that he was holding her by the throat, and there the matter rested, as far as he was concerned. His only psychological and political need was to find a reason for the woman’s action, and thus a reason to put the blame onto the man.

  2. The first Family Court example comes from a public relations documentary about the Family Court that the Family Court itself prepared for screening on television. A Polynesian man was representing himself in court – presumably because he couldn't afford a lawyer. He was objecting to having to go on an "Anger Management" course – where anti-male Male Feminists would attempt to teach him that he was to blame for anything reprehensible that occurred between himself and any female in his vicinity. In the end, being an ordinary, individual, rather than a lawyer, he was not able to withstand the anti-male pressure that was applied to him by Judge Adams, and was forced to agree to go on the course. After listening to the man's opening statement, Judge Adams summarised his affidavit as saying that the man had had to put up with a lot himself as well (from his ex-girlfriend). Then the Judge said, "I guess that implies that you got out of control." That is an example of gross anti-male bias on the part of Judge Adams. The point of the man's testimony was that his ex-girlfriend had been guilty of psychological and/or physical abuse, and therefore either they should both be punished or neither of them should be.

  3. The second Family Court example comprises the following quotation from New Zealand Family Court Judge K G MacCormick (A v R [2003] NZFLR 1105, 1107): "That more women seek (protection orders) is no doubt (my emphasis) because men are generally physically stronger and more inclined to try to resolve disputes by the use of physical force." It is not just that the Judge was arguably utterly wrong, as we have seen, and it is not just that such anti-male stereotypes and prejudices are grossly oppressive towards men and destructive of families. The most striking point is that the learned Judge did not feel the need to refer to anything remotely resembling evidence before making a statement like that, and (possibly) basing his judgement on it.

  4. The final example involves a Men’s Rights activist. He invited me to his house to discuss a reply to a Feminist article, and he had, unbeknownst to me, arranged for a female acquaintance of his to telephone me there to give me the benefit of her comments on it. In the course of this telephone conversation, I stated my opinion that Domestic Violence never occurred in a vacuum – that no man ever hit a woman, for example, without some sort of provocation, although whether the provocation was sufficient to justify the hitting was a different issue altogether. She made no comment or other audible reaction to my statement. After that conversation, the Men’s Rights activist told me that she had been a battered woman. Since I do not just accept someone’s say-so that someone was a so-called “battered woman”, with all the implications of exclusive innocence on her side and exclusive guilt on her partner’s side that that term implies, I raised that issue again later with that activist. I started to ask him about her, by saying, “You said that she was a battered woman,” but I was unable to finish my sentence, because he interjected “Definitely !” “Oh,” I said, surprised at his being so emphatic, “So you’ve discussed it with her husband ?” He looked sheepish, and admitted that he hadn’t, so I told him that he wasn’t part of the solution – he was part of the problem. Later, I telephoned the woman, and asked her if she had really been a battered woman, but she was reluctant either to describe herself in those terms or to let me talk to ex-husband. It is fundamental to Natural Justice for both parties to a dispute to be given a fair hearing, but it seems to me that the typical scenario in Domestic Violence cases is that it is psychologically a near-impossibility for any male protagonist to get a fair hearing.


The Inapplicability of Natural Justice to men in conflict with a woman

I have had five examples of Law lecturers or Law Professionals instructors breaching the Natural Law principle Audi alteram partem ("Hear the other side too") when I, as a Law student, was in conflict with a female:

  1. For two or three lectures around Wednesday 12 February 2003, in lectures, the Legal System lecturer (Katrine Evans) stared at me sternly every time that a pretty student passed me going up the aisle (my seat was next to the aisle). This upset me, because I had had no indication that anything was amiss, so I stopped the student and asked her what her name was (it was Karen), so that I could complain about this harassment. Since Katrine Evans was the Women’s Students’ Adviser, I assumed that Karen had made some complaint about me to her. It was grossly against Natural Justice and the Rule of Law for Katrine Evans to take aggressive action of this sort against me without telling me what I was supposed to have done and giving me a chance to respond.

  2. One day, before Torts class, I mounted a protest about a sexist overhead projection which purported to invite all of us students to a function, but which -- when you read further -- turned out to be a "Women in Law" function at which Justice Glazebrook would give special advice on legal careers -- obviously only to female students. The Class Representative (a female Feminist) went out of the lecture hall, and when I heard noises outside I went out ot the lecture hall to see what was happening. There I found the Class Representative, a policeman or security guard, and Professor Brian Brooks, the Dean of Students. Professor Brooks went red in the face, shouted, "You!" and proceeded to threaten to send me to the Vice-Chancellor's office and get me expelled. I retorted by threatening to take a personal grievance against him, which calmed him down. He breached the principle Audi alteram partem by not asking me for my side of the story. The next thing I heard about Professor Brooks was that there was no longer a Dean of Students.

  3. In due course, the lecturer, Geoff McLay, arrived, and proceeded to tell me off about my actions (which he had not witnessed). He did not ask me for my side of the story. He did, however, make reference to the fact that he had not heard my side of the story. In other words, he was aware that he was breaching a principle of Natural Justice, but did not care.

  4. At the Institute of Professional Legal Studies, which teaches a Legal Professionals course, I had a dispute with a female trainee, who then went off and told her side of the story to someone, I asked to speak to the instructor, Mr. Chris Dellabarca, privately. When we got to his office, he did not give me a chance to speak until I demanded to have one.

  5. I transferred to the Legal Professionals course at the College of Law. After handing in one of my examinations there, I turned to the female trainee behind me and said "Hello." She just glared at me. The invigilator, Mr. Sherwood King, then glared at me too. He presumably "knew" that, when a male is in dispute with a female, the male is always in the wrong.

The above nine examples, together with other examples I could give, make breaches of Natural Justice seem to be the norm for the New Zealand legal system where a male is in conflict with a female. I believe that the situation in similar in most Western countries.




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

2 August 2015