Home > Issues > The Culture of a Law School > The Lunatics have taken over the Asylum

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


The Lunatics have taken over the Asylum

© Peter Zohrab 2006

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


In New Zealand, there has been a recent flurry of debate about why boys are doing worse than girls at school. The views of Dr. Paul Baker on this topic are the most analytical I have seen so far (Understanding the gender gap New Zealand Herald 19.04.06 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10378016). This is not saying a great deal, since (as he himself says) the research base on boys' education in New Zealand is minimal.

This is not an accident, because the lunatics have taken over the asylum.


Female Dominance

The Feminists (the lunatics) quite rightly consider it a threat to the Eternal Victimhood of Women for research to be directed at the needs, wants or interests of men or boys (not to mention unborn children), so they use their domination of the Media University Complex (MUC) to prevent it from taking place. Meanwhile, the Post Primary Teachers' Association uses its members' funds to churn out non-education-related propaganda about how society oppresses women, and male teachers (most of whom sit down to pee) are too gutless to prevent them (if nothing has changed since I was a teacher, anyway).

Feminists have made a propaganda-feast on the issue of male violence, while in fact being violent man-haters themselves: see farmerss.html. This puts men onto the back foot and gives the initiative to women. Male teachers no longer have the courage to criticise women, for fear of being called names, whereas female teachers have a whole ideology that feeds them ammunition to use in attacking males.

I once taught Computer Studies in the Mathematics department of the Correspondence School, and the Head of Department (reputedly a Lesbian) had allowed a female teacher to have at her desk a sign saying, "Men can't do anything" -- until I complained about it. Bear in mind that it was a campaign with the slogan "Girls can do anything" that was created in order to improve girls' performance at school -- at a stage when they were doing less well than boys. It is nothing less than insane to pretend that we can improve boys' performance without attacking the attitudes of Feminist women and girls -- and also the attitudes of male teachers who put up with anti-male propaganda in the teaching environment.




Reasoning ability is not valued highly in the female-dominated New Zealand education system: I remember being in a meeting at The Correspondence School when a fellow basic-level German teacher, Robyn Skrzynska, appeared to me to demonstrate an inability to think logically. I commented on this to a colleague after the meeting. Subsequently, Robyn Skrzynska attacked me by opening a heavy door violently towards me from the other side, was promoted to Senior Teacher German, harassed me sexually and otherwise, and then was promoted to Dean!

As I have pointed out at resescam.html , the Neuroscience article "Sex differences in functional activation patterns revealed by increased emotion processing demands*" shows that men's and women's brains process emotional stimuli in different ways. It states:

"These findings suggest that men tend to modulate their reaction to stimuli, and engage in analysis and association, whereas women tend to draw more on primary emotional reference."

To put it simply, women have evolved to get emotional about things, and men have evolved to be rational.

I think it is likely that, apart from demoralising men and boys by pushing the Feminist line that women are good and men are bad, Feminists have also dumbed the education system down so that girls' relative lack of rationality is no longer a disadvantage, but an advantage. How can teachers value rationality, if so many of them are irrational themselves ?



Universities are also male-hostile places.

As Class Representative for a class at the Law School of Victoria University of Wellington (class: Comparative Law; date: some time in November 2004), I told the lecturer (Professor Tony Angelo) that I wanted to speak to the class. He agreed -- but then suddenly realised that I was an anti-Feminist, and so asked me what I was going to say. I replied that I was going to say that I was going to resign because of all the Feminists in the Students' Association executive. He said, "You're not going to say that, are you !?" So he introduced my announcement with an apologetic smile, and the warning that I was going to be saying something political. That was in a Law School which taught "Feminist Legal Theory" as an optional course, and had Feminists (i.e. at least one, in my personal experience as a student) teaching Feminist propaganda in compulsory courses ! To teach Feminism is not "political", in other words, but to disagree with Feminism is "political" !

Victoria University of Wellington's Psychology Department also actually advertises the fact that it excludes the teachings of Freud (i.e. because he is unpopular with Feminists) !

In other words, if you think you can get non-politicised, academic knowledge from a modern western university, dream on !




The result of having an education system dominated by dumb Feminists is not only that irrational girls are valued more highly than rational boys, but boys are being trained to be as irrational as girls.

Here are some examples of how some male adolescents use words such as sexist and racist. In an article in the Dominion Post on 21 February 2006, Ralph Lee, a Victoria University of Wellington law student, states the following (about me):

"Mr Zohrab has published and stated what many consider to be sexist and racist beliefs.... His opinions and statements ... are repugnant to many (including myself). An open letter to governor-general and former High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright was titled Resign, you incompetent, sexist, racist bitch!"**

He does not explain what I have said that is supposed to be sexist or racist, or why it is sexist or racist. He does not say why my opinions and statements are repugnant. He does not discuss whether the quoted title of my webpage was justified by what I said on the page itself. In other words, he seems to have emotions, such as the feeling that certain things are repugnant, and he seems to have learnt some useful adjectives, such as sexist, and racist, but he seems to have no ability or inclination to attach a meaning to these adjectives, or to relate facts and arguments to the use of such words.

The same could be said of the editor, James Robinson, and Feature Writer, Brannavan Gnanalingham, of the Victoria University of Wellington student newspaper Salient. Robinson (in the March 27 2006 issue) says that I am a "racist, sexist, bigoted, and out of touch freak show," but he does not bother to give any examples of views of mine that fit that description, or to explain why they fit that description. His use of the term out of touch betrays his probable belief that opinions are fashions, like clothes and pop music, and that anyone who does not share his tastes is out of touch. I will not bother to tear his other writing to pieces, because that will just make him a hero to the Feminist-dominated media, and promote his career.

Similarly, Gnanalingham --though his article on me (in the same issue) is generally clear and accurate -- states the following:

"Zohrab wrote an open letter to governor-general Dame Silvia Cartwright entitled 'Resign, you incompetent, sexist, racist bitch!' Zohrab has also published a book called Sex, Lies and Feminism .... I will admit, that even me, with an extremely high tolerance for offensiveness, I found his chapter on rape and a number of his quotes questionable at best, and highly offensive at worst."

Like Ralph Lee, he restricts his interest in my letter to its title -- having no apparent interest in whether the body of the letter justified the title. He seems to think that he is the only one in the world who is so objective that he can quantify his own tolerance for "offensiveness" (which is obviously a subjective, not an objective matter). And he makes no attempt at giving examples of this "questionable" or "offensive" material -- and (needless to say) no attempt to discuss whether what I write is true or backed up by evidence. That would be being rational !

In the telephone interview, he asked me what I would say to the people who found my views offensive. He doesn't seem to think that these people need to provide logical arguments -- just feelings. He obviously doesn't understand that there is no reason why I would want to say anything to a bunch of Feminazis who shout down people when they disagree with them. Since he is a law student himself, I would have thought that he would have realised that people who do not believe in free speech have no place in a decent legal profession -- not that we have one !

Gnanalingham doesn't seem to have a concept of free speech. Having quoted me about Feminazis shouting me down, he then says that I am quite good at shouting myself. In other words, he thinks that, if Feminazis shout me down when they disagree with what I say, I am supposed to shut up or speak quietly, so that no one can hear me !



I believe that the fact that Lee, Robinson, and Gnanalingham appear unable to think any better than the average chimpanzee is due to the fact that they have had Feminist and female teachers. Lee comes from Canada, but I know that Canada is almost as Feminist-dominated as New Zealand is. It is appalling to think that these morons will soon be voting in elections on the basis of whether the candidates are in touch with the latest emotional fashions.

I think we should ban teacher unions and fire all female secondary teachers as a temporary measure, and then set up a system which values rational thought, as a long-term solution.


*by Geoffrey B.C. Hall, Sandra F. Wittelson, Henry Szechtman and Claude Nahmias, in Neuroreport Vol. 15 2004, pp 219-223.

**I called her incompetent for flouting her constitutional duty to be non-political, sexist for taking a partisan pro-female point of view and ignoring an obvious pro-male viewpoint, and racist for publicly criticising the customary protocol of another race on the very day of the year that celebrates the relationship of that race with the Crown that she represented.


See also:





Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

29 October 2022