Home > Issues > General Theoretical Issues > De-Dumbing Up: Rolling Back Feminism and Liberating Men

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

De-Dumbing Up: Rolling Back Feminism and Liberating Men

(Second Partial Review of "To be Fair: Confessions of a District Court Judge", by Rosemary Riddell)

Peter Zohrab 2021

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


A. Women Oppress Men


In my first partial review of this book, A Lying Feminist Judge: Applying the Law AND some "Facts", or Applying the Law TO the Facts?, I pointed out that Judge Rosemary Riddell

  1. admits that she knows little about Family Violence (apart from the Law which defines and punishes it);

  2. has obviously slurped up the Feminist, anti-male "Power and Control" (a.k.a. Duluth) model of Family Violence, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence for it;

  3. is totally ignorant of the huge amount of objective research about assaults by women on their spouses or male partners; and

  4. had a predetermination that men were to blame when she judged Family Violence cases.


We only know these facts about Riddell because she was stupid enough (from her point of view) to write a book and inform us of them! In her Preface (on page 7) she states:

"Some of my colleagues may grumble that I have given away too much. That judging is such a high profession and it is impolite at best to divulge the more crass aspects of the job. They may be right."

The above quote implies that there is a culture of secrecy among judges. That is also what I found when I tried to investigate the activities of the Institute of Judicial Studies. Initially, I had been able to discover, using the Official Information Act (1982), that two Feminists (including one with close ties to the anti-male Women's Refuge organisation) had been allowed to give presentations to that Institute, whereas I was not permitted to. Later, I was denied the right to use that Act to get any more information about it.

Some Fathers' groups (I did not participate, however) have received a lot of publicity for demonstrating outside judges' homes. Riddell herself states (on page 71):

"Some fathers' groups, or mothers' groups for that matter, raise genuine issues via the media and keep us all on our toes.... Others seem hell-bent on a campaign of harassment which goes beyond court to a judge's personal life, impacting on their children and, at times, their personal safety..... When I was targeted by such a group, there was the risk they might interrupt our open day when we were selling our house."


As a Men's Rights Activist, I was not in favour of these personal attacks at the time. However, because of Judge Riddell's book, I now think that they were perfectly justified, in her case! What is a man supposed to do, when oppressed by a judge who predetermines cases against men? Start a revolution? What is even worse is the culture of undemocratic judicial secrecy, which makes it impossible to know exactly how many Riddells have been running around our legal loony-bin!

If there are many judges like Riddell in many countries, this amounts to the world-wide oppression of men by women! There is objective evidence that this oppression exists: the Ministry of Justice report “Sentencing In New Zealand: a statistical analysis,” which proves that gender is the most significant factor determining how harshly judges deal with people -- with men being treated worse than women.


There are other aspects of legal discrimination against men which can be proved. For example, the Police are biased against men in the same way that judges are -- and for the same reasons. And the judges believe what the anti-male Police say in Court and use this to justify anti-male decisions!


  1. Lower Hutt Public Enemy #1;

  2. Police Culture and Anti-Male Bias Straight from the Pig's Mouth (Book Review); and

  3. Bad Money Driving Out Good: Police Bias, Sexism, Stupidity and Incompetence.


And Parliament discriminates against men too. In the Crimes Act 1961, there is a separate offence of "Male assaults female", which carries a higher maximum penalty than does "Common assault".


Riddell's views on women in the judiciary are fascinating! She writes (on page 110):

"The twenty-first century has not yet ushered in an era of men and women on an equal footing, whatever their roles might be. Take law, for instance. Women make up more than half of law students and have done for many years. By the time you get to the bench, though, women judges comprise 32.3 per cent of the judiciary in New Zealand."

Let's analyse that passage, applying the intelligence which Riddell so clearly lacks. She writes: "has not yet ushered in ... equal footing...." She is implying that men and women are moving in the direction of equality. However, she says that women used to make up fewer than half of law students, but now they make up more than half of law students. Is that equality? Of course not! Does she say that the number of male law students should be increased (or the number of female law students decreased) , so that the numbers of male and female students are equal? Of course not! She just banks the larger number of female law students as a win for women and is eagerly anticipating the day when women will also constitute a majority of judges! Does she mention that most people in prison are men and that the number of women in prison should be increased (or the number of men in prison decreased), in order to have men and women on an equal footing? Of course not! Does she mention that sentencing by judges is biased against men and that we need to have men and women on an equal footing in that area of judicial practice? Of course not!

Riddell's views on the teaching profession are similar. She writes (on page 111):

"Why did it take until 2018 for women to finally comprise the majority of school principals in New Zealand, when, for decades, teaching had been a female-dominated profession?"

Does she say that the number of male teachers should be increased (or the number of female teachers decreased) , so that the numbers of male and female teachers are equal? Of course not! She just banks the larger number of female teachers as a win for women and celebrates the fact that women now also constitute a majority of school principals!


She writes (on page 111):

"The Second World War saw women worldwide entering the workforce in factories and on farms or working as drivers and nurses and other roles. However, women were expected to relinquish those roles after the war in favour of their menfolk returning from battle. It was back to the kitchen for another decade until again societal expectations started to shift in favour of women seeking greater personal freedom and equal rights."

Does she say that equal numbers of men and women should be conscripted or pressured to join the armed forces in wartime? (N.B. In Britain during the First World War a white feather was often given to men out of uniform by women to shame them publicly into signing up.) Of course not! Does she say that equal numbers of men and women should be killed and wounded in wartime? Of course not!




B. Women Use their Jobs to Brainwash Everyone With Anti-Male Propaganda and Lies.


Riddell has no understanding of the word "equality". She just uses her prestige as a former judge to write a book advocating that we have even more female judges with the power to discriminate against men in the way that she herself has been doing!

Women in the media and the education sector use their jobs to create and disseminate anti-male propaganda, while preventing pro-male information from being formulated and distributed. Every day brings multiple new examples of this determined lying and censorship. Here is one example:

Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news organisation, which apparently never criticises the Emir of Qatar, also never criticises Feminism. You can predict how it would spin any topic it turns its attention to by asking yourself, "How would a Feminist supporter of the Emir of Qatar spin this story?" On 27th November 2021, I searched its website for "women's rights," and got "About 76800 results" and (if the first page of results is any guide) almost all of them are written purely from a Feminist point of view. Then I searched for "men's rights" and got "About 34400 results," but (if the first page of results is any guide) only about one tenth of them are actually about men's rights. And that one tenth are Feminist spins about men's rights -- see the top search result: "Red pills and dog whistles: It is more than ‘just the internet’".

That is typical of most of the media and education sectors in Western countries. You can find other examples HERE and HERE. Riddell's book is also an example of a woman using her former job to brainwash people with anti-male propaganda and lies.



C. Stupid Women Use their Jobs to Increase the Power of Other Stupid Women to Oppress Men.


Riddell quotes some semi-proverbial advice (page 57):

"be thought of as an idiot, rather than speak and remove all doubt."

Unfortunately, she did not heed that advice herself, but stupidly wrote and published a book about herself!!


I have mentioned that Riddell thinks that more women should be judges. She also thinks that more women should be partners in law firms. On page 63 she states:

"The statistics issued by the New Zealand Law Society show what they describe as a glacial rate of improvement for women being admitted to partnership over the years. For example, it (sic) was 19 per cent in 2012 and 32.7 percent in 2018. All that time, women have made up the majority of both law students and those practising law in New Zealand, yet when it comes to partnership and women on the bench, we are not equally represented."


This passage demonstrates the utter stupidity of both Riddell and the women in the New Zealand Law Society:

  1. As far as Riddell herself is concerned, it is clear that the fact that "women have made up the majority of both law students and those practising law in New Zealand" constitutes women being "equally represented" among law students and law practitioners! This is typical of Feminists: any proportion equal to, or greater than, 50% constitutes "equality for women," since it is totally immoral, as far as they are concerned, to be interested in the equal representation of MEN!

  2. Riddell is clearly too stupid to understand basic statistics: It is clear that she does not mean what she says. She clearly does not mean that (for example) 5% of all female lawyers were admitted to partnership in 2011 and 19% more (i.e. 5.95%) were admitted to partnership in 2012, which is what she actually says, since she uses the term "rate of improvement". What she means is that 19% of partners were female in 2012 and 32.7% were partners in 2018.

  3. Moreover, it is stupid of both Riddell and the women in the New Zealand Law Society to claim that that is a glacial rate. Assuming that the average age at which a lawyer becomes a partner is something like 35, and that the average age at which they retire is 65, they are partners for 30 years, on average. The actual percentages do not matter much. That means that one thirtieth (3%) of partners retire each year, on average. So, in the six years from 2012 to 2018, we would expect about 18% of partners to retire. Some of those retiring partners would presumably be women. So, if the proportion of female partners increased by 13.7% in just six years, that means that more than 76% of new partners were female. That is a very rapid rate of increase indeed and must have resulted in the bypassing of many competent males and the promotion of moronic, anti-male females, such as Riddell! She herself says (page 63):

    "I wouldn't say partnership was a barrel of laughs, and I could envisage the day when I went out as a barrister practising on my own."

We could perhaps read between the lines that her incompetence was possibly a handicap to the firm, which might have hired her because she was a woman. So she was kicked upstairs and made a judge!

And, as if that level of stupidity wasn't enough, Riddell also states (page 185):

"I confess to employing that old human instinct, intuition."

That's all the justice system needs -- female justices relying on "feminine intuition"!

New Zealand's first female Chief Justice, Sian Elias, appointed females to head all of the mainstream courts: Apart from the Supreme Court, which she headed, the Chief District Court Judge was Judge Jan-Marie Doogue; the Chief High Court Judge was Justice Helen Winkelmann and the President of the Court of Appeal was Justice Ellen France.

I mentioned above that, in the Crimes Act (1961), there is a separate offence of "Male assaults female", which carries a higher maximum penalty than does "Common assault". When Judith Collins was Justice Minister, I wrote to her about abolishing it. She replied that:

"The arguments in favour of retention of the specific offence include the important role that many believe it has to indicate society's abhorrence for violence against women and to ensure appropriate penalties are imposed."

What does that have to do with "Equality" and Human Rights?




Women should lose the right to vote and be sent back to the kitchen as soon as possible!



See also:




Someone has let women out of the kitchen -- and they have been telling lies ever since!




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

22 August 2023