MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

A paper published earlier this year in a peer-reviewed scientific journal explores the negative impact radical feminist ideology has had on the treatment of Domestic Violence. The paper details are:

The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Donald G. Dutton, Tonia L. Nicholls Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 680–714
Download ‘Part 1—The conflict of theory and data’ [278KB PDF]

The authors begin by noting the heightened official response to Domestic Violence in the early 70s, which resulted in refuges being opened for women victims and court-ordered treatment groups developed for men, a model which has persisted until the present. [References have been removed from the excerpts below, but are available in original paper.]

As a result of this sample selection and of the prevailing ideology of feminism, the notion evolved that spouse assault was exclusively male perpetrated or that female intimate violence, to the extent that it existed at all, was defensive or inconsequential. Subsequent research showing equivalent rates of serious female violence has been greeted with scepticism, especially by the activist-research community. Data surveys similarly met with criticism, especially by feminist researchers who were committed to the view that intimate violence was the by-product of patriarchy and hence, an exclusively male activity. This initial dogma has persevered despite data to the contrary, to be presented below.

This type of error in social judgment is demonstrated in research studies by social psychologists which show “confirmatory bias” (also called “biased assimilation”) and “belief perseverance” occurring when research subjects have a strongly held belief and are exposed to research findings inconsistent with the belief. The subjects reconcile the contradiction and maintain the prior belief by discounting the research methodology. They do not apply the same rigorous standards to research findings, which confirm their beliefs.

After a comprehensive review of the literature and the debates which have raged between the activist and research communities, the paper points out some of the downside of this ideologically-driven approach:
(more…)

Headed: ‘Man –haters’ on abuse checklist , a story in the Press yesterday written by Kim Thomas notes the fact that we recently linked to an item on another site containing a checklist for spotting women who make false abuse allegations.

Thomas reports:

The Masculinist Evolution New Zealand (Menz) website says false allegations of domestic violence are commonplace. It is a view backed by another lobby group, The Union of Fathers.

Women’s Refuge is deeply angered by Menz’s promotion of the checklist, which it says minimises family violence.

Menz is affiliated with many of New Zealand’s male rights groups and has thousands of names on its database.

(Actually, I told Thomas that our number of subscribers was “less than a thousand”, but I’m not going to bother complaining about that.)

The article continues with Union of Fathers spokesman Darrell Carlin confirming that false allegations in order to deny a father custody rights are common in New Zealand.

The article continues:

Women’s Refuge national trainer Debbie Robinson said she was angered by Menz promoting an article, which undermined efforts to deal with family violence… New Zealand research showed that only 1 to 2 per cent of people with protection orders abused the process.

Even if this ‘research’ had any credibility whatsoever, Robinson’s attitude is astounding. Even her dodgy figures represent hundreds of children loosing their dads because of the Refuge’s ideologically-inspired campaign of social engineering. Just because bad things happen to ‘only’ a small percentage of victims, we can safely ignore them, according to Robinson. I wonder if she would apply the same reasoning to other social problems that affect 2% of the population?

The Radical Feminist attack on Judge Recordon for daring to deviate from the politically-correct line continues.

A Press Release issued by Karen Price, National Women’s Rights Officer at the New Zealand University Students’ Association, insists the Judge’s attitude to domestic violence is outrageous.

Price argues in favour of continuing with the ‘one size fits all’ approach:

“Any minimising or differentiation of domestic violence risks normalising such acts, and reduces the likelihood of survivors speaking out and being taken seriously.”

I can understand why she is confident her prediction is correct – the RadFem strategy of differentiating between male and female violence then minimising the latter has so far proved fantastically successful at stopping male victims from speaking out and being helped.

Regarding the Judge’s reference to 80% of women choosing to stay with abusive partners, Price gives a revealing insight into how women of her ilk see the world:

“This is simply not true, as many women do not have genuine ‘choice’. A more accurate description of this phenomenon could be that 80% of perpetrators of domestic violence manage to retain their victims.”

I wonder how many students these days really support this perverse and twisted reasoning? Do they even pay attention to the values their representatives espouse?

In an October 22-28 2005 Listener article titled: ‘My Eyes Stay Awake‘, Dennis Welch writes about the “effect on children exposed to domestic violence”. Personally, I can’t help wondering if the article is more about the effect of young, attractive, blond interview subjects on aging male journalists!

To enlighten us, Welch interviews Jane Drumm, Executive Director of the organisation Preventing Violence in the Home, an “Auckland agency formed to help women subject to domestic violence”. The information that Drumm is actually a prominent Women’s Refuge [JP edit: her organistion, previously known as the Domestic Violence Centre (Auckland) is no longer formally part of the National Refuge Collective, but the website is still unambiguaously aligned with Refuge's radical feminist ideology] activist is inexplicably omitted; in fact the words ‘Women’s Refuge’ do not appear anywhere in the article.

Drumm tells the Listener that out of “concern about the effect on children of violence between their parents”, the organisation set up a child crisis team of social workers who supposedly give “kids the tools to cope with what they have to cope with… and to be safe”. It also presumably opens up huge new opportunities for getting public funding to pay feminist activists.

I’ve copied every mention of violence in the article below – who can spot what is wrong with this picture?

Dad had been drinking. He threw my mum on the floor and got a big knife from the kitchen. He strangled her. He said, “I’m going to kill your mother tonight” I said “No, Dad don’t hurt mum” but he wouldn’t stop. Mum was saying to me “help me” but I didn’t know what to do.

My dad hit my mum. Dad pushed mum onto the fridge. Dad is naughty for hitting mum ’cause it makes Mum say “no, no”

All blood came out of her face. She needed a towel. I cry lots of times.

My eyes stay awake at night. My dad might kill my mum and the night. He hit her bad before. There was lots of blood.

“I want to get in between I am too scared”, said a seven-year-old girl who saw her mother abused. “I am mean not helping her”.

How do you help a three-year-old cope with Dad hitting Mum?

Katy Reeves asked the mother about the danger posed by her violent husband — now living apart from her but still paying threatening visits.

Drum and colleague and Rachel Williamson surveyed the child crisis team over a period of five months and found that nearly half the children spoken to (27 out of 62) had witnessed their father’s or stepfather’s violent abuse of the mother.

The article concludes with a promotion for the National Network of Stopping Violence Services conference “Courageous Practice” to be held at Waipuna Lodge on October 20-22. Why is the Listener colluding with these radical feminist organisations in promoting hatred towards men and the removal of fathers from involvement in children’s lives by spreading this type of disinformation ?

If this article had been written by a wet-behind-the-ears journalism student straight out of school, the lack of balance and uncritical reporting of an extreme ideological agenda might be understandable, even if unacceptable. That it was written by a senior and experienced reporter like Welch should be of grave concern to us all.

Men lose out in battle for cancer cash
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Medical Correspondent

A MAN diagnosed with prostate cancer has only one-quarter of the cash spent on research into his disease compared to the amount devoted to a woman’s breast cancer.
The wide discrepancy shows the scale of the discrimination against men. The two diseases kill similar numbers.

According to the most recent available figures, total research spending by the government and the leading charity in the field comes to £36.8m a year for breast cancer against £9.7m for prostate cancer. In addition, the NHS spends £72m annually on the national breast screening programme but there is no such scheme for prostate cancer.

The government spends £4.2m a year on prostate cancer research. While it does not disclose how much is spent every year on breast cancer, the figure is estimated to be at least £12m.

High levels of funding for breast cancer research over the past decade have led to dramatic rises in survival rates. Some 64% of women diagnosed with the disease today are likely to live for at least 20 years.

Patient groups argue that the imbalance in funding will need to be addressed if men suffering from prostate cancer are to be given the same hope.

The Duchess of York, whose father, Major Ronald Ferguson, died from prostate cancer in 2003 after a seven-year fight, said better funding was “desperately needed”.

Phyllis Schlafly, defender
The Washington Times’ fine tribute to Phyllis Schlafly contains one major omission: her work today (“Conservatives’ first lady sparked pro-family effort,” Page 1, Oct. 7). Not only did her leadership not end with the Equal Rights Amendment, but her current campaign may turn out to be among her most critical. Sadly, we seem to have learned little.
Mrs. Schlafly is now heroically challenging the systematic destruction of families in the nation’s family courts. This hidden abuse is the logical culmination of what many call the “totalitarian” tendencies of organized feminism but which few fully understand or confront. “Feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution,” she writes. “Feminists made divorce a major component of women’s liberation.”
Yet even today, Mrs. Schlafly meets resistance — and not only from the left. Some conservative politicians have swallowed the poisonous feminist propaganda about the evil male and the necessity for massive government action against him.
Avoiding political risk, they posture as champions of “women and children” by demanding measures against “domestic violence” and “deadbeat dads,” even when no scientific data indicate that these problems are anything other than creations of the government.
(more…)

Rift erupts over male suicide policy The Press

A serious rift has appeared among suicide experts over policies targeting male suicides.

The debate erupted yesterday as the Males and Suicides Symposium 2005 organised by Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand (Spinz) opened in Christchurch. Spinz is a non-government, New Zealand-wide information service, in partnership with the Mental Health Foundation.

Suicide researchers based at the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences have challenged claims by Spinz director Merryn Statham, calling them “misleading”.

In a statement supported by six other academics, Associate Professor Annette Beautrais said yesterday Statham had pointed to the disproportionate rate of suicide in males and proposed male suicide was a major area to be addressed.

However, a clear decline in the male to female suicide ratio had occurred in recent years, she said. In 1994, four males took their own lives for every one female. By 2002 the ratio had declined to 3.2 males for every one female suicide.

“Under these circumstances the extent to which further policies to reduce gender differences are needed is debatable.”

I came accross this from an article at mensnewsdaily.com recently.
[JohnP edit: 'Will she call 911 on you?']
Go check it it out.
It’s an astonishing watershed article.
It outlines events in the USA.
However I post it because I believe after living and working within the DV industry in NZ that it seems chillingly close to what I’ve seen happening there.
It’s author offers what commentators are calling ‘landmark’ advice on how to counter women’s power to use institutions such as the family court to abuse them.
It offers astute advice on how to profile any woman with a checklist for signs that they’re likely to be abusers of men in relationships.
Very timely.
Sad it’s come to this.
Still, you could say that women’s overwhelming silence about thier personal and state sanctioned abuse towards the men in thier lives means they have brought it upon themselves.
Now the tide turns, and regretably women too will know how it feels to be treated with suspicion in the company of members of the other sex who will be privately profiling them.
Another part of the terrible legacy radical feminism and political correctness has left us -

There is a dirty, little secret in America—never covered by mainstream newspapers, magazines, or TV and radio networks: Using the sanction and anti-male, unconstitutional force of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)—originally enacted in 1994—vindictive women, in increasing numbers, make fraudulent 911 calls to scare and punish their boyfriends and husbands.

If a woman calls 911, claiming fear of a man, the police automatically will: 1) arrive on the scene, 2) believe the woman’s version of events, and 3) arrest the accused man. That’s OK if the man is guilty of domestic violence (DV). Alas, it also happens when a woman invents violence, premeditates malice, and manipulates a Napoleonic law-enforcement system that, in overreaction to the OJ Simpson case, condones DV fraud against men.

American courts and police forces routinely oblige VAWA’s basic premise: Women are innocent victims; men are guilty predators—even though women are equally guilty of committing DV crimes. But, any good street cop knows that arresting a woman for DV will jeopardize his career. Instead, for arresting men, he is rewarded and his department receives increased VAWA funding from the US Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women.

Refuge supports not jailing wife-beaters NZ Herald

Glenda Ryan, manager of Henderson’s Viviana refuge, said local refuges supported a Waitakere pilot scheme which encourages men charged with domestic violence to plead guilty and attend anger management courses and drug and alcohol counselling.

The pilot makes men charged with domestic violence less likely to be jailed in Waitakere than in most other parts of the country apart from Manukau, where a similar pilot started in February.

Judge Philip Recordon, one of three Waitakere judges who hear domestic violence cases, told a conference in Wellington that men who beat their partners should not be jailed if their behaviour could be changed in other ways.

“The more you can do to change his behaviour the better – what’s the point of locking them up if you can avoid it?” he was reported to have asked. The text of his speech has not been released. He is reported to have said that judges should consider discharging first-time offenders without conviction in a minority of domestic violence cases “at the lower end of the scale”.

Ms Ryan said many women who were beaten by their partners wanted the violence to stop, but still wanted the relationship to continue and were not willing to send them to jail.

“In the old system a lot of the men would plead not guilty and go to a defended hearing. On the day their partner would refuse to give evidence and they would walk free,” she said.

“When there is a chance to offer help and services to those families, women are prepared to stick with their complaints on the basis that their partners will be sent to things like anger management and drug and alcohol counselling and any other personal counselling that they might need.”

JohnP comments: Although the Herald finds support for Judge Recordon from a refuge is “unexpected”, it is perhaps not so surprising when you understand that the Henderson Refuge is not aligned with the National Collective of Women’s Refuges, precisely because it dares to support grass-roots community values and initiatives rather than the radical feminist hard line.

This story raises important questions of equity – how long will men who aren’t lucky enough to live in Waitarere or Manukau be forced to tolerate the simplistic ‘one size fits all’ Domestic Violence intervention model (ie: Duluth), based on the ideological agenda of man-hating 20th century lesbians?

Justice Ministry should be prosecuted for Family Court bungle
Press Release: New Zealand National Party

Nelson MP Nick Smith wants the Ministry of Justice prosecuted for publishing on its website sensitive Family Court information in which a family and children could easily be identified.

“This is a serious breach that undermines the confidence of tens of thousands of families who use the court,” says Dr Smith.

“The Solicitor-General last year saw fit to prosecute TV3, Radio New Zealand and myself for revealing far less information about a case.

“The family concerned are outraged that very personal information about their relationship and finances was put up on a public website when they could easily be identified. The website uses their initials, ages, the town they lived in, and the specific small business they ran together. The family was alerted by someone who immediately identified them from the government website.”