A. Women Oppress Men
admits that she knows little about Family Violence (apart from
the Law which defines and punishes it);
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
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
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
And Parliament discriminates against men too. In the Crimes Act 1961,
is a separate offence of "Male assaults
female", which carries a higher maximum penalty than does "Common
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
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
WOMEN AND OTHER FEMINISTS OPPRESS MEN WHENEVER
THEY HAVE JOBS THAT ALLOW THEM TO DO SO!
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:
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
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
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:
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!
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
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
"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
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!