Monday, July 31, 2017

Why should an ex-wife care

Here's an article in which the ex-wife of Karl Stefanovic has spoken about how she's not happy that her ex-husband is seeking to get his vasectomy reversed so he can have children with his new partner.

Why would she care?

Could it be that she wanted more children and he wanted to stop at three, so him going on to have more children with another woman is a slap in the face?  Possibly.

Or, could it be that the child support payments to her would go down with every child he has with a new partner?  Probably more likely.

Having seen women get angry that their ex-partner "only had children to pay less child support" (yes, that's what's going through every man's head when he has children), it doesn't surprise me that the level of entitlement of some women will never cease.

It doesn't matter if his new partner is pushing him to have more children, all that matters is that this is a scorned woman who thought she'd locked in her now ex-husband into only being a provider for her children.

Having seen adult children left out of the will of their parents estate by new partners, I'm surprised the media doesn't make a bigger deal about this, but of course they won't, primarily because it's usually women making off with the money since it's usually a younger woman than it is the man and women usually live longer.  Those two factors alone mean that, excluding divorce, when two people get married, it's usually the husband who dies first, leaving everything to his wife.

I previously wrote about how it was reported that supposedly Karl was paying through the nose to have access to his children, so it's not surprising that it's never enough.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Male rape victim, 4th paragraph again

So, here's a case of three men who put a bottle up another male's back side being reported in the news.

As per my usual statement of the 4th paragraph, the term 'rape' is thrown around a lot, the fact that all the perpetrators are male is introduced very early on (opening sentence even), however true to form for the media, the simple fact that the victim was also male doesn't appear in the article until the 3rd paragraph.

  • 1st paragraph - "unconscious teenager"
  • 2nd paragraph - "a 19-year-old"
  • 3rd paragraph - "the man"

I know it's not technically four paragraphs, but come on, they could have mentioned that the victim was male very easily in every paragraph, but chose to withhold that because the media likes to only report when women or minorities are victims and when men and whites (or both) are the perpetrators.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Channel Seven lawsuit outcome

So the woman at who claimed a great many things after her two year affair ended with a Channel Seven heavy, is reportedly dropping the case and is expected to pay Channel Seven's legal fees.

Well, she did try to play the media (not a great idea when you're trying to play the media against the media), by all accounts took far more than any reasonable person could have expected to get in settlement and then, despite having been paid off with non-disclosure agreements in place, disclosed company information, presumably in the hopes of gaining support for her case.

Of course, whilst her initial case was given all the coverage of a visiting Royal, something tells me that now things haven't been found in her favour (possibly due to her actions) the whole thing will be swept under away quietly.

If reports of her having to pay Seven's legal fees are true, I'll bet she'll be wishing she'd quit whilst she was ahead.

Men robbing shops in groups - no mention of background

So, here's one of those stories about an Asian man who has taken to defending his store after being robbed by several men a number of times.

Of course, despite the clear as day pictures, there's no mention at all about the backgrounds of these men.

It must just be men in general.

If only there were another way to describe these men that might help us to identify some linking pattern from where all of this crime is coming.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Outrage when a man uses the system against a woman

So here's an interesting (and sad) story about a woman who isn't able to travel outside Australia because her ex put her on a family flight watch list.

The watch list is designed to prevent divorced partners leaving the country in custody disputes, yet there's outrage when a man uses it to prevent his ex taking their children overseas.

The reality is that women leaving the country with children and never coming back (otherwise known as 'International Child Abduction') make up the majority of cases, which is why I think this isn't considered a crime (it's usually a breach of court ordered visitation rights, but not a crime).  Many sites like to claim that every one of those women are doing so to flee domestic violence, but that isn't always the case, and they rarely have anything more than anecdotal evidence to back it up.  But if a man does the same thing, he's portrayed as an evil man.

I paid particular notice when they go into the details that she's spending thousands of dollars on legal fees to fight this, but "he's getting legal aid".  How many men have to pay thousands of dollars on legal fees in custody battles when their former partners get legal aid?  Apparently there's outrage when the genders are reversed.  Maybe she's got lots of money (maybe she got the lot in the divorce) and he's left broke.  Legal aid isn't available to people who have money, so stating that he's using it when she has to pay is indicative that she has money and he doesn't.

When the media starts reporting on all the divorced fathers who can't afford to mount a challenge to visitation rights because their ex is using legal aid but they have to find thousands just to appeal what they consider unfair access, then I'll feel sorry for this woman.

In closing, I'm not saying that this particular guy is or isn't guilty, but if there's one thing we've learned in the last year, it's that the media chooses which stories to report and which ones to hold back, which stories to beef up the details and which stories to leave out what they consider 'unimportant details' and which groups to hold up as the 'usual suspects and bad guys' and which groups should be given a free pass.

Given my recently acquired (in the last couple of years) skepticism of the media, I'm not inclined to take any case at face value until they start reporting crimes between men and women equally.  They can pretend all women are great and all men are evil all they like, but those of us who live in the real world know that both men and women exist at all ends of the good/evil spectrum.

Monday, July 3, 2017

Police searching for woman who abducted 6 year old girl

I guess it's hard to hide that a woman was involved in a serious crime like abducting a child when the only person (of three) who is known is a woman.

Notice how it's not until the 3rd paragraph that it's identified that they're looking for a woman primarily.

Not much is known about the situation, but given that someone knew the name of the woman, but not the men, suggests that the woman was known to the family, but the men might have been hired muscle.

Personally, I would have lead with "a X-year-old woman named Y and two men are wanted for the abduction of a 6 year old girl", not this pussy-footing around about "we're searching for a girl... she may be at significant risk... oh, and the main person we're looking for is...".

A little girls safety (and possibly life) is at stake here.  Can the media put down their PC agenda for ONE FREAKING MINUTE and get the message out there NOW.  As it stands, a person has to actually click on the link to the article to get the photo and name of the woman in question.

AFL Diversity Manager coward punch

Only time will tell if the AFL does anything to their Diversity Manager because of violence.

I guess like his brother, the former CEO of Australia Post, there aren't going to be as much scrutiny as there would be if a white person had done the exact same thing.

By the way, in my opinion what the CEO of Australia Post got away with in terms of being able to get a 'donation' paid to a foundation run by his family is far worse than hitting someone.  Although, hitting someone when you're supposed to be setting an example is always worse than if you're just some guy.

A bit like how the media holds up Right-wing politicians to higher standards to Left-wing politicians.  It's almost like having standards means you are going to be held to them.

Maybe that's the problem here: nobody has any standards and, therefore, they can't be held to anything.