From The Shower…Again.
I also read the article in the Herald today. Once again I was distressed by the distortions which keep rising and rising.
For example, the graph does not demonstrate the numbers of female violent acts against men.
But most importantly, the data does not even attempt to address the issue of women making false allegations of ‘violence’ for the sole purposes of gaining custody of the children.
No person in their right mind would dispute there are many violent people, both men and women, in all societies. It is my view that any person who is proven to be violent (physically) should be dealt with extremely. But mostly they aren’t.
The authorities seek to remove the victim from further potential abuse by issuing various orders. In most cases these orders are sufficient, in some they are a total waste of space.
But surely, as with all attempts at ‘law-enforcement’ the main problem is, we simply don’t have enough police to enforce. But even if we had a cop standing outside every second house in the realm, the truly seriously violent person will find a way past to kill or seriously maime.
What is not featured in the statistics, other than female-on-male violence, is the number of orders taken out against an accused malfactor where no proof of abuse was offered other than the word of the accuser.
And so the number of false-accusers are lumped in with the genuine accusers, the female abusers are left out completely, and thus the stats are utterly distorted…AGAIN.
And the very reason the stats are so distorted is that the level of proof, within the Family Court (read; all associated agencies) is so far below the standard required in a normal court of law.
It is THIS issue which must surely be our prime focus. Surely, our (disaffected parents) salvation is in finding a way to cause the legal ‘system’ to once again require proof of accusation. Proof which would stand the test of close scrutiny.
At the moment the system seems to assert, ‘It is better to save one child/mother, while destroying the lives of 9 children/fathers. Just in case we miss one.’
Surely? This is madness?
And so, in a knee-jerk reaction to the vile Kahui clan, the system will loosen the reigns on proof and tighten them on the accused.
It’s rather like asserting, “It’s better to have 300,000+ children bereft (and, therefore, seriously damaged as a result) of real and equal input by the other partner, than risk having one child hurt by a partner.”
I wonder how long it will be before vexed employees either threaten to, or actually level charges of impropriety against their employers.
One call to CYFS. ‘Hi. Look I don’t want to be named, but I’ve just seen my boss ‘touching’ his son. Yeah, I just happened to walk past his office…It’s school holidays and all…and I just happened to see him with his hand down the boy’s pants.’
Immediately, the system erupts. Investigators are sent. Investigations are completed. The child refutes. The child is deemed to be in denial. Or the system asserts ‘Insufficient evidence, but an accusation is an accusation, therefore it MUST have merit. Otherwise, why would it have been made?’ The accusation stays on the file for the life of the accused.
But there is NO proof, and without proof all we have is ‘belief’ and we can see how damaging ‘belief’ can be to a society. Go ask all those injured in 9/11 who were victims of the ‘beliefs’ of sundry madmen.
And without ‘proof’ we have statistics churning out asserting that all female accusers tell the truth and that there are no female assaulters.
PROOF. That’s what we must all strive for. To make the system accept only PROOF, and have that PROOF required to be at a standard acceptable to the criminal court.
Cheers
David.
Yes, absolutely spot on David.
We’re banging the same drum bro.
Incidentally with it being common knowledge that females can shaft men with a mere accusation devoid of proof, I find it makes it harder to trust ALL women in nz.
(Are you reading this Julie, Chrissy?)
I reckon until many more nz women join savvy men there to pressure thier sistas into stopping using the chivalric/feminist system to bash males then naturally and inevitably honest trustworthy women will be treated with suspicion.
It’s dead simple really.
If you get badly shafted by a woman/women and notice the same happening to your mates, meet other guys with the same story time and again, then you become wary of women period.
Then unfortunately even the honest women who mean men no harm get treated with suspicion. Sad but true.
And I’ll be the first to say that’s where I’m at right now, in sharp contrast to how trusting of women I used to be say 20 odd years ago.
I’ll need to see alot of women not only talking the talk, but walking the walk of advocacy for men’s rights before I soften and risk trusting women more like I used to.
Why?
Because I’m like many of the guys who post here I’m a wonderful bloke, generous, caring, fiercely loyal and courageous. Like Julie said (Thanks Julie) I could have spent all these many years putting effort into growing financially rich, insted of being active in pressing for social change.
And also because along with millions of my brothers worldwide I deserve the dignity of being granted much more respect.
Common human dignity in fact.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 15th July 2006 @ 8:46 pm
You’re dead right there Dave. The justification for the rediculous bias and consequential rulings in the courts is always backed by some statistics of which the reliability is never looked at, or another follow up independant study carried out to support or disprove those ‘findings’
I believe that through these ‘statistics’ we are being lied to. Even if the ‘statistics’ about Men being violent could possibly be anywhere near the truth, we are still being lied to by not being supplied with the statistics of female violence towards Men. I say this because to the average person this Implies that female violence towards Men does not exist, so the overall perception left in the average persons mind is far from the truth.
The most potent lie is the truth distorted.
It seems these statistics seem to pop up regularly, seeminly coming from out of the blue, as if to keep reminding us of what they want us to believe, in case someone were to have doubts….
Comment by Moose — Sat 15th July 2006 @ 10:54 pm
Yes Moose,
and when you know you’re being statistically lied about time and again by those too intellectually lazy to dig beyond the facile propoganda – many feminists in academia, in the press, in your face at work meetings, in your circle of ‘friends’, over and over ……
and you keep hearing countless women smugly reiterating these statistical lies to suggest thier superiority……..
it just reinforces the attitude of wariness towards ALL women I explained in post number 1.
I personally know lots of nz feminist women (who don’t even recognize themselves as such) who have an aweful lot of trustbuilding to do for having bought into then pushed the malebashing barrow.
Of course they may feel so ’empowered’ and ‘entitled’ as to not want to reconcile with me but keep adhering to the cliched malebashing.
Too bad.
I’m told that I’m a very skilled highly educated guy who’s very useful as a friend.
But piss me off with thoughtless misandry then it’s a different story entirely……………
Comment by Stephen — Sat 15th July 2006 @ 11:23 pm
Statistics? Someone mention statistics?
Statistics don’t lie do they? Refer a couple of posts I did a week or two back. The figures touted were frankly impossible.
I see the Sunday News are today quoting Ms Iha Teman Henare as saying the Refuge helped 17,212 women and 9,904 children last year.
Put that into perspective: 17,000 women is approxiamately 340,000 women over 20 years, or about 60% of all women who will turn 20 over that time. 10,000 children is about 18% of all children born each year.
Remember that Police tell us they refer 30,000 kids to CYFs each year. They also tell us they attend 63,000 DV incidents each year (being, they believe, only about 10% of all DV incidents. There should be 300,000 kids therefore referred to CYFs each year.
CYFs tell us they had a further 28,000 kids referred to them from other sources.
So (and bearing in mind we’re going to get a lot of Refuge crap in the media this coming week – it’s appeal week – although I guess they’ll be asking the public for less this year, since they just got more from Helen’s Clarkettes):
Why do the Refuge only deal with less than half of the cases police deal with? Why are they not more effective in following up the referrals made to CYFs by police? Can Police, CYFs and the Refuge not work together?
Can we please have a standard, universal and agreed common definition between these three organisations so that we know we’re all speaking the same language?
Can someone please start recording woman violence on man by teh same set of definitions?
If Police theory holds true, would the Reguge agree they only see about 10% of all abused women each year? Is therefore the true headcount the Refuge should see = some 200,000 women and 100,000 children each year?
Which would = 4,000,000 women and 2,000,000 children over 20 years, which of course is just a tad more that NZ actual has!
There are lies; damn lies; and statistics.
Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 16th July 2006 @ 7:06 pm
Hey guys,
The women are not meant to balance violence between men and women. It is not their responsibility. They are responsible to care for the women so they are not going to run down women.
Do you want to run down men? No.
Who’s responsibility is it to gather statistics for men? Yours.
It is for you to measure or to gather measurements done by independant parties such as universities.The most recent statistics that I have found (independant) show women to be more violent in all areas.
Click the link below and go to 4th and 5th pages and look over Table 1 and Table 2
Gender differences in partner violence
Comment by julie — Sun 16th July 2006 @ 10:14 pm
Dear Julie,
Men, Women and children are “people”.
It is every persons responsibility be they male or female gender to gather correct statistics and then use that information for the betterment of all people.
Women are not responsible for the care of women, and neither are men responsible for their own.
Collectively we should be in unison for all, otherwise we are continuing with a gender warfare even if it might only be passive.
Comment by Paul Catton — Sun 16th July 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Hi Paul,
Fair enough comment. I am thinking that once statistics are accepted from women being violent to men, the women’s groups will start dealing with women who are violent and having ‘anger management’ and ‘relationship’ education programmes.
But, I still think we will have gender groups as we are different. Those groups will still want to measure their own problems and solutions thus they will still collect sole gender statistics. Ohter groups like family groups collect information for both sexes as they deal with both sexes.
Comment by julie — Sun 16th July 2006 @ 10:56 pm
Another bit of information about the statistics. They are gathered from clients who come to the women\’s refuge or contact the women\’s refuge.
The women\’s refuge does not deal with the men whose partners are in contact or who stay at the refuge.
How do you propose they measure the men\’s side? How much more money will they require to pay for someone to chase the men up? Do you think these men wiil want to be a part of the statistics and do you think they would welcome the women\’s refuge in their lives?
I am not saying this to stick up for the women\’s refuge. I am just trying to shed some light on the subject.
Comment by julie — Sun 16th July 2006 @ 11:04 pm
The small amount of research I did on domestic violence suggests that it is 50/50 male/female. however, men are less likely to ring police if assaulted by a woman, are less likely to be taken seriously by the police and charges laid thus skewing the stats.
Comment by Chrissy — Tue 18th July 2006 @ 5:48 pm