Human Rights Commission Determined to Spread Misandry
I wrote a letter recently to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and I have now received their reply, as follows. Below that I offer my thoughts and encourage men to join me in challenging the HRC.
11 March 2010
The Commissioners
Human Rights Commission
PO Box 12411
Thorndon
WELLINGTON 6144
Dear Commissioners
Re: White Ribbon Campaign poster
When I visited your Wellington offices recently I noted a huge White Ribbon Campaign poster prominently displayed depicting a Maori man, arms folded, saying “Mate, show you’re against violence towards women”.
I hereby express my strong objections to the display of this poster and to any support the HRC provides for this sexist campaign. The campaign generally, and the poster specifically, promotes a stereotype that men are the only violent group and ignores violence at significant levels committed by women. This is likely to increase hate and discrimination against men as a group. The campaign through omission promotes a belief that violence against men is not worth mentioning, not worth worrying about in either quantity or quality, when in fact men are overwhelmingly more often than women victims of violence and the most serious violence in our society.
Would it be acceptable to display a poster with a Maori man saying “Maori, show you’re against violence towards white people”? If not, then why would you imagine it’s ok to denigrate men in this way?
Feminist propaganda has created widespread beliefs about men that are unbalanced or often simply fabricated (e.g. the “rule of thumb” and the “Super Bowl” myths) and that encourage discrimination against men on almost every front in New Zealand. The White Ribbon Campaign has arisen directly out of feminist propaganda and perpetrates it. I do not believe our Human Rights Commission, funded by both men and women, should contribute to the spread of false beliefs and stereotypes about any group including males. I urge you to remove the poster from your offices and to reconsider your support for this gender-biased campaign.
Yours faithfully
Hans Laven
I am appalled at the misinformation offered by the HRC as justifying the misandrist White Ribbon Campaign. I am appalled though not surprised that the HRC has ignored key aspects in my letter, such as the challenge that it would be unacceptable to mount a campaign urging Maori to stop being violent to white people even though crime statistics would make that particular campaign easier to justify than the White Ribbon Campaign is.
I encourage readers here to respond to the HRC about their letter and their untenable position. I believe it presents a significant opportunity to hold accountable a government department of central relevance to the men’s cause. Key points that deserve to be made are:
(i) The fact that men are said to have “developed” the White Ribbon Campaign is irrelevant to the question of whether that campaign discriminates against men.
(ii) It’s rich to claim that “the campaign is also a reminder that men too are the victims of violence”. There is nothing whatsoever in the campaign that attempts to provide such a reminder and it’s simply fraudulent to hold the campaign up as such. On the contrary, by specifically excluding any acknowledgement of violence towards men or violence by women, and by implying that violence by men towards women is the only matter worth mentioning, the campaign manipulates public opinion in the direction of ignoring or denying violence towards men.
(iii) It is incorrect to claim that women and children “experience greater threats than others to their security and safety…particularly in the home”. It may be true that women suffer more serious (though not more frequent) domestic violence on average than do men, but men suffer much more and more serious violence in society generally. The gender gap for greater violence against men in our society generally is much greater than is any gender gap in the domestic sphere. And anyway, the campaign in no way specifies domestic violence, referring simply and exclusively to “violence towards women”. As far as security goes, women with children are virtually guaranteed a secure living on the state, funded by ex-partners they may have treated poorly and abandoned. For women without children they continue to have their security catered for by government much more than men do through sexist assistance such as state funding exclusively for women’s refuges, the “Unsupported Woman Benefit” and relationship property laws that are now designed deliberately to favour women. Men face a far less secure existence in NZ than do women.
(iv) It is incorrect to claim that “the evidence shows that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence”. This misinformation really deserves robust challenge. I would challenge the HRC to provide its sources. Has the HRC not bothered to read the unbiased studies, for example both of the NZ major longitudinal population studies, that have shown men and women are equally likely to be subjected to partner physical violence (not to mention emotional and psychological violence)? Does the HRC base its claim entirely on “research” by feminist interest groups that does not stand up to methodological scrutiny?
(v) The HRC’s mention of the frequency of female murders is offered in the absence of any comparison with rates of murders of males, and as such provides no justification for an unbalanced campaign that ignores violence against men.
(vi) Obviously “the campaign aims to address the unacceptable level of violence that affects women and children, including physical, psychological, emotional and sexual violence and intimate partner violence”. Aside from the assumptions contained in that statement concerning psychological and emotional violence (which is probably much more prevalent against men, often blatantly supported by our laws and Courts), it simply begs the question at the basis of my complaint, i.e whether violence against women is somehow so much more prevalent or deserving of attention that a taxpayer-funded campaign should totally ignore violence against men.
(vii) The HRC considers it important to “raise awareness of an issue which continues to affect a large proportion of our society”. But surely, if the same issue affects the large remaining proportion of our society as much or more so, then the campaign can only be seen as discriminatory in ignoring that remaining proportion.
(viii) The HRC reports the neat legislative trick that makes discrimination against men ok if claimed to be designed to promote equality between men and women. This is an interesting demonstration of feminism’s moral corruption that here tells us two wrongs do make a right. Regardless of that, the HRC’s resorting to that legal trick does not apply to the White Ribbon Campaign. In our society, men are overwhelmingly more often the victims of violence and the most serious violence (except in the domestic situation), so any attempt here to promote “equality between men and women” could only justify a campaign discouraging violence against men, not women.
(ix) It is ironic that our major human rights organization funded through our taxes would support a sexist, misandrist campaign that spreads misinformation and false stereotypes damaging the image and reputation of the male half of our population, and would then offer such pathetic attempts to justify its support. It’s simply a form of evil that men have come to expect, but please don’t roll over and accept it. Please keep the issue alive and hold the HRC accountable for its invalid arguments and misinformation.
I wrote the following letter, which resulted in White Ribbon Posters being BANNED from ALL Courts:
Perhaps I should write a copy to the Human Rights Commission.
Subject: Offensive material displayed in North Shore District Court
I am objecting to a poster for the “White Ribbon” campaign, displayed in the office of the North Shore Family Court.
The “White ribbon” campaign has the laudable aim of opposing violence against women, but is not concerned about violence against men, nor violence against children. In addition, men are depicted as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence.
For these reasons the “White Ribbon” Campaign is at best a factional interest group, and could be seen as promulgating “hate speech”. Allowing such groups to promote their extremist dogma actually exacerbates the problem of domestic violence by excusing the violence suffered by children and their fathers, at the hands of the many violent women, and promoting the removal of fathers from their families.
You will of course be aware that domestic violence has been shown by all reputable studies committed equally by men and women, and that most violence against children is committed by women. You will of course be aware that violence to children is 50 to 70 TIMES higher in fatherless homes.
Allowing these offensive posters to be displayed in Family Court offices is distressing and offensive to male victims of domestic violence, and to their children who may have suffered abuse at the hands of a woman. These posters reinforce the perception that the Family Court has an anti-father, and an antifamily bias.
All Family Courts should be instructed to remove these offensive posters immediately.
Comment by John Brett — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 12:48 pm
I have written thus:
Rosslyn Noonan
Human Rights Commission
PO Box 12411
Thorndon
WELLINGTON 6144
New Zealand
Dear Rosslyn
Subject: Offensive material displayed in Human Rights Commision Offices
I am objecting to a poster for the “White Ribbon” campaign, displayed in your offices
The “White Ribbon” campaign has the laudable aim of opposing violence against women, but is not concerned about violence against men, nor violence against children. In addition, men are depicted as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence.
For these reasons the “White Ribbon” Campaign is at best a factional interest group, and could be seen as promulgating “hate speech”. Allowing such groups to promote their extremist dogma actually exacerbates the problem of domestic violence by excusing the violence suffered by children and their fathers, at the hands of the many violent women, and promoting the removal of fathers from their families.
You will of course be aware that domestic violence has been shown by all reputable studies committed equally by men and women, and that most violence against children is committed by women. You will of course be aware that violence to children is 50 to 70 TIMES higher in fatherless homes.
Allowing these offensive posters to be displayed in your offices is distressing and offensive to male victims of domestic violence, and to their children who may have suffered abuse at the hands of a woman. These posters reinforce the perception that the Human Rights Commission has an anti-father, and an antifamily bias.
The Courts have recognised these posters as offensive offence, and do not permit White Ribbon advertising in any New Zealand Courts.
All offices under your juristictions should be instructed to remove these offensive posters immediately.
Yours sincerely
John Brett
Comment by John Brett — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:02 pm
I’d like to respond to your key points so that I can fully understand your position. I’ll start off by agreeing that men are frequently excluded as victims in domestic violence campaigns, however I believe that there are some valid reasons for this.
My first point of contention is your fourth key point where you state that “It is incorrect to claim that “the evidence shows that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence””. I’ve never read a study that indicates men and women are equally victims of domestic violence, and I do make an effort to read unbiased research. Could you please provide links to this study that makes this claim?
Your fifth key point is regarding the number of males murdered in comparison to female murder victims. Again I’ve only ever come across research that states more women are killed by their male partners than men are by female partners. If you have research that rebuts that I’d love to read it.
Point seven relates to any interesting point that concerns in regards to other issues (such as unequal health promotion). Introducing a campaign purely about men as victims of domestic abuse by their female partners would be unpopular and met with derision from the general public. I believe that male domestic abuse is an issue that needs to be addressed but it would be more effective to work it in with a existing DV campaign that has successfully reached the public than to rail against it. The message that you send by campaigning against the current White Ribbon campaign is that domestic violence towards women is something you don’t care about.
From what I’ve read the authors and readers on this site are intelligent and committed to the issues that are raised. Perhaps a more effective approach could be used to make sure that you get the outcome you want?
Comment by Amanda — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:45 pm
I’ve never read a study that indicates men and women are equally victims of domestic violence, and I do make an effort to read unbiased research. Could you please provide links to this study that makes this claim?
Not hard to find
The country’s longest-running study of a birth cohort, covering 1037 people born in Dunedin in the year ending March 1973, found that 37 per cent of women and 22 per cent of men who had partners by the age of 21 had perpetrated acts of violence against their partners ranging from “pushing, grabbing or shoving” (29 per cent of women, 21 per cent of men) up to “beating up” (1 per cent of both men and women).
At age 21, 360 of the young people in the sample agreed to bring their partners to be interviewed too, providing what was said in 2001 to be the world’s “largest study of abuse in a representative sample of couples to date”.
Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit
Christchurch Health and Development Study
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 2:34 pm
The message that you send by campaigning against the current White Ribbon campaign is that domestic violence towards women is something you don’t care about
Two top health researchers have accused the Families Commission of “ideologically driven” bias in presenting domestic violence as a problem of men battering women.
Professor David Fergusson and Associate Professor Richie Poulton said their respective long-term studies of people born in Christchurch and Dunedin in the 1970s showed that most domestic violence was mutual.
“In a high proportion of these couples, we are seeing mutual fighting. It’s brawling,” said Professor Fergusson.
In contrast, the commission is backing White Ribbon Day on November 25, which asks men to wear a white ribbon to show that they do not condone “men’s violence towards women”.
The commission, chaired by former Race Relations Conciliator Rajen Prasad, was set up by the Labour Government in a deal with Peter Dunne’s United Future party after the 2002 election. It has a budget of $8.2 million a year.
The private spat between the professors and the commission began after last year’s White Ribbon Day, when commission chief executive Paul Curry said: “Almost all family violence is carried out by men on women and children.”
The two professors wrote to the commission in March objecting to this claim.
Commission principal policy analyst Radha Balakrishnan said Mr Curry now accepted that he had made a mistake but stood by the claim that the worst domestic violence was perpetrated by men.
“We are talking about the most serious and lethal cases where perpetrators are predominantly men and the sufferers are predominantly women and children,” she said.
“The gendered nature of intimate partner violence is really important.”
But in an email to the Herald, Professor Fergusson said: “It is my frank view the commission’s stance on domestic violence is not being guided by a dispassionate and balanced consideration of the evidence.
“Rather, it is being guided by an ideologically driven model that assumes on a priori grounds that domestic violence is a male problem and that female-initiated domestic violence does not exist or is so trivial that it can be ignored in the commission’s policy focus.”
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 2:38 pm
There are no excuses for marginalising any victim of abuse. NONE! The moment you start talking about “valid reasons” you signal that you are willing to do this.
Then you should look to the work of Murray Strauss, Donald Dutton, University of New Hampshire or Harvard.
Better yet why don’t you tell us what “research” you rely on.
Depending on the jurisdiction men are between 25 and 40 percent of the victims of spousal murder and 75 to 85 percent of ALL murder victims. New Zealand’s most recent numbers – almost parity – were discussed here a few weeks ago.
Have a look at my state government’s Health and Community internet page. Notice anything missing? Are men a part of the community? Or not?
Doesn’t that tell you something? Interesting that our apparently misogynist, patriarchal culture would have this attitude don’t you think. It is to the disgrace of our communities that the only time a male victim of abuse is ever visible in the broader discourse is as the punch line of a joke.
You mean like the existing campaigns that pretend that ALL the abusers are male and ALL the victims female? The services that laugh at victims who call seeking help? The campaigners who do everything they can, including ridiculing actual victims, to minimise the impact and scope of male victimisation? Those ones?
Cart before the horse. The message sent by the White Ribbon campaign is that nearly half the victims of partner abuse, half the victims of child sexual abuse, three quarters of the victims of child abuse and more SIMPLY DON’T MATTER. They made the mistake of being male or being abused by a female. Thus they are consigned to oblivion.
My message to THEM is that when you marginalise victims of abuse you contribute to the harm they experience as a consequence of that abuse. In effect you become a participant abuser.
There is no excuse.
Comment by gwallan — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Your fifth key point is regarding the number of males murdered in comparison to female murder victims. Again I’ve only ever come across research that states more women are killed by their male partners than men are by female partners. If you have research that rebuts that I’d love to read it.
Please support your claim with references to this research.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Hi Amanda,
I read your post with interest, always good to get another opinion on things or at the very least see what others think. So thankyou for that.
Im very interested in your statement,
I’ll start off by agreeing that men are frequently excluded as victims in domestic violence campaigns, however I believe that there are some valid reasons for this.
Could you tell me what these reasons are,
And also why you feel these reasons, as yet unmentioned, are valid?
Comment by mits — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Amanda: Thanks for your points and for making them in a reasonable manner.
I offer the following points in response to each of your paragraphs:
Scrap has already provided some references. The picture provided by rigorous, independent research studies is that men and women are approximately equally likely to initiate physical partner violence but the violence done by men towards their female partners is, on average, significantly more severe. However, many more males are subjected to domestic violence at the hands of other males. Those male victims are still just as deserving of attention regardless of whether it was a man or woman who caused the violence.
My fifth key point referred to males being murdered in general, whether by female partners, female enemies or other men.
That may be a message you assume but I have in no way sent it. I would be fully supportive of a campaign that said “New Zealanders, show you’re against violence” and I would even accept “Men, show you’re against violence towards women and your fellow men”. However, I accept that it may be better to specify positive alternatives rather than simply challenging what is.
Sure, but the men’s movement has used all manner of approaches with little effect against the feminist propaganda machine heavily funded by our taxes. For me and many men, the White Ribbon Campaign in its current form is NOT OK. There is no way that support for it from a taxpayer-funded Human Rights Commission can be excused or tolerated. I am happy to challenge it head on and to force the HRC to admit that its position is untenable. That and a few other similar capitulations by organisations that support misandry will, I believe, help get the message across to more of the population.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 6:21 pm
Amanda,
I agree with those who’ve already stated on this thread there’s no excuse for abuse. NONE.
I also think gwallan makes a valid point in saying to you that –
There are no excuses for marginalising any victim of abuse. NONE! The moment you start talking about “valid reasons” you signal that you are willing to do this.
Here’s another study, reported in a very respectable scientific journal which is open to peer review. It shows researchg with a cohort of over 11,000 men and women who answered questionaires about intimate partner violence. It is starkly at odd with your views which you say have been researched. You haven’t actually told anyone yet what research your views are based upon. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d be interested to know that.
I’m glad the white ribbon campaign gets challenged, as does the Human Rights Commission (The same organisation that dismissed my complaint about Whittcouls Auckland Central branch having a book right next to the children’s section at children’s eye level entitled ‘All men are bastards’!) I kid ye not!
I’m saddened to see you jump to the awfully mistaken conclusion that challenging feminist orthodoxy is hatred of women.
Though I’m not surprised by this as it’s been something I’ve noticed feminists doing reflexively for decades now.
I guess by now you’re beginning to feel very challenged. I’m sure you’ll see that despite our differences at times increasingly men are of one mind when it comes to dealing with feminist misinformation, false allegations, partisan views based on flimsy or non existant ‘research’ and ultimately misandry.
Welcome.
Hang in there sister.
I have a feeling it’s going to be a roughish ride for you, but you’ll get another perspective you apprently lack for the time being.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Sorry Amanda,
for overlooking the link to the study I mentioned.
Here it is.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 10:05 pm
It’s fundamental that any effort to tackle domestic violence should focus on protection of people from domestic violence and the education/prosecution of perpetrators.
Considering a person’s sex can only introduce unhelpful and incorrect stereotypes about the natures of men and women. Male victims are ignored, innocent men are tainted by false association, female offenders are not dealt with and women who have suffered no domestic violence are perceived as being members of a group of people needing special protection.
The message White Ribbon campaign supporters send is that they support the victimising of the innocent and excuse the guilty on the basis of an individual’s sex.
All the major social reforms of the last 150 years have had an emphasis on our common humanity and the primacy of our merits as individuals over any negative associations with whatever identity group we are born into. The very title ‘Human Rights Commission’ reflects this. When spokespeople of the Human Rights Commission state that men can be lawfully discriminated against, they are saying that in their view of law, men are not human.
Comment by rc — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 11:02 pm
rc,
A standout comment –
The very title ‘Human Rights Commission’ reflects this. When spokespeople of the Human Rights Commission state that men can be lawfully discriminated against, they are saying that in their view of law, men are not human.
Brilliant, concise, cogent and Very Very Scary analysis brother.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 11:14 pm
Something I would like to point out here:
Definition of abuse, from Collins Student Dictionary:
.
.
.
Now I have certainly not put this definition in to be pedantic. As I have read through the earlier posts their seems to be a rather disturbing common thread to the behaviour of the HRC.
The stated purpose of the HRC is:
http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/default.php
It appears from viewing their own statement of what they are about and then comparing it to the realities of how they function that there is a very valid case for accusing the HRC themselves of serious misconduct. They are allowing ill treatment of men to continue, spreading mistruth with biased “facts”, abusing their power, and taking advantage of men (and by inaction allowing others such as the family court to do the same). How does this fit in to “a fair, safe and just society, where diversity is valued and human rights are respected.”?
.
In essence the HRC themselves are at best guilty of abuse of men by failure to act, what I believe in legal circles is known as a crime of omission, and in abuse circles is known as abuse by neglect. At worst the HRC is guilty of active abuse of men, and by promoting initiatives with obvious discrimination and misinformation they directly violate their stated purpose. By doing this they could also be considered guilty of fraud.
.
Imagine what our society would be like if the HRC actually did the job for which they state they are for and we had “a fair, safe and just society, where diversity is valued and human rights are respected.” This of course would include all humans; men, women and children, with EQUAL EMPHASIS and no discrimination.
.
Imagine it for a moment.
.
Seems to me that New Zealand would be a very different place.
Comment by Phoenix — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Good comments Pheonix.
Everyone, please communicate your excellent points and challenges to the HRC. The address is on the letters above. Snail mail seems the most likely to be given consideration and a reply. I understand that the number of people who feel offended and complain to them is an important criterion for them. Also, some of the comments made in this thread may cause the HRC to believe that they would be hard pressed to defend their position if challenged legally. If they do change their position or bring about change in the orientation of the White Ribbon Campaign, we can be ready to draw media attention to this. Here is a realistic opportunity to influence change in public opinion.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Well done John, good letter.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Scrap_The_CSA: I looked up the research that you directed me to. I was unable to find any research on domestic violence or intimate partner violence (as it appears to be referred to) by Associate Professor Richie Poulton, however I did read the study done by Professor David Fergusson. I was unable to get a pdf with the tables included but I did read the conclusions that he came to.
His main points in conclusion were:
– There were limitations on his study; the ages of the participants and the social context.
– They were unable to examine the extreme outcomes of IPV such as death, serious injury and serious psychological trauma. In fact they refer to incidents studied as ‘relatively mild’.
– Finally, the victims of IPV was found to be equally divided between men and women.
I was surprised by this as I didn’t believe this was the case. Unfortunately in order to cause widespread change in both public opinion and government funding, further studies need to be done. Hopefully they will in the near future.
You asked about my sources so I’ll done some digging. I’ve found a lot of research in response to high victim rates among women but I realise that by posting it, it will sound like I want to belittle the experiences with men. The whole motive is not to prove that men aren’t victims (especially after reading that study) but rather that the White Ribbon campaign isn’t designed to reject the issues when face but highlight the one’s women do. Further down I’m going to explain this a bit better.
However this is a factsheet I found about gender and violence. It was released by the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse and every statement has a source so it can be verified. If you still want me to post other research I will, but my intention is not to prove that men aren’t victims.
http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/PublicationDetails.aspx?publication=14144
GWallan: I complete agree with you regarding my statement. I was out of line to say there were valid reasons in excluding men. I meant something different but didn’t put it across correctly. So I apologise.
I can’t comment on the policies that your government take because my head is so full with dealing what our government does before I start taking into account what’s happening worldwide! My point in saying that dv campaigns primarily about male victims being met with derision is that there hasn’t been the mainstream evidence to prove this. Men haven’t been encouraged enough to say something. It’s an egg and chicken problem. The public isn’t going to support a campaign for men until they see some evidence they like, but men aren’t going to come forward and give this evidence until they feel safe enough because of a men’s campaign. It’s not that I agree with it, it’s just that it’s the current situation.
I’ve had plenty of time to mull over your responses while at work and it has changed my thinking. When I got home from work last night I came across two DV pamphlets that I had collected and I want to bring them to your attention.
The first is from Shine* an NZ DV organisation that offers information on DV, support and other services. Not once in the pamphlet is there any mention of gender, neither of perpetrator or victim. The website is similar. The facts on the site are based around female victimisation and they do only offer male abuser’s programmes but the rest is entire gender neutral.
The other is a little booklet that I picked up at Family Planning that uses the terms ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ in all instances. It is targeting a younger audience and directs people to visit sites like Youthlaw (youthlaw.co.nz), Urge (urge.co.nz) and Expect Respect (expect-respect.org.nz). It was funded by Auckland Regional Public Health and the Ministry of Health.
White Ribbon day is an international day that was started in Canada by a men’s movement. It has since been adopted by the UN. My thinking is that instead of campaigning against a great cause, perhaps what is needed is a companion to it for men. It isn’t against human rights to campaign for women. But it is necessary to campaign for men as well. Asking the HRC to take down their posters is to say ‘do not support women if you won’t support men’.
I hope this has come across in the right manner. I’m tired and I’ve had a lot to respond to!
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 7:58 pm
Thank you Amanda for bringing this information
The ‘Gender neutral’ pamphlets have come about specifically from pressure from sources such as this- they didn’t used to be neutral
The New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse is NOT an impartial source, they represent an industry which profits from ‘violence against women’ (and it aims to maintain government funding for this). Their figures are most certainly open to challenge.
IN PRACTICE :
1 Protection orders are unavailable to men and their children
2 Police best practice (from their manual) is ALWAYS arrest the male in any DV call-out, even if it is blatantly obvious that the female is the perpetrator. We even have Videos of them doing this.
As a Law abiding citizen, it pains me to have to accuse the NZ Government and its agencies as complicit in causing and perpetuating domestic violence, because if an ideological pre-determination on men=perpetrators, women=victims.
As I assume you to also be a law abiding citizen, it is going to be hard for you to accept that the once-trusted ‘authorities’ are actually a part of the problem, and not to trust their self-justifying statistics. (see my comment on law and Order on this site).
Comment by John Brett — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 7:47 am
Amanda – Truth in domestic violence has been covered on MENZ a lot previously, and I recall a huge list of references to studies showing that partner violence is much more equivalent between the genders than what feminists have long maintained.
However, you focus entirely on partner violence whereas the White Ribbon Campaign and its central slogans focus on violence generally and make no specific reference to partner violence. The campaign spreads false propaganda that women are so much more likely to be victims of violence in our society that violence against men is not even worth mentioning.
The facts: In 2009 in NZ, there were 88 victims of murder and manslaughter, consisting of 59 men and 29 women. Previous research showed that the gender proportions in homicide rates were similar to gender proportions for injuries from violence for which medical treatment was sought.
The 2009 Social Report from the NZ Ministry of Social Development (MSD) states:
Note the tendency of the MSD to reduce the impact of the male victimization conclusions by immersing them in statements referring to other matters; this is typical of the way our society tries to hide male suffering. Nevertheless, the MSD had to acknowledge that men more than women suffer from violence in our society (and furthermore that men were as likely as women to have been victimized by partners).
Concerning the White Ribbon Campaign, whether males or females committed the violence is relevant only to the group being targeted as potential offenders. But the campaign not only directs its “reject violence” message to men, the message itself is only “reject violence towards women”. Male victims die just as fully and hurt just as much as female victims do from violence but in much greater numbers.
There is simply no excuse for excluding violence towards men from any taxpayer-funded campaign against interpersonal violence. The fact that it has occurred at all shows the deep misandry that has become acceptable in our society and in many other western countries.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Thank-you yet again Hans for erudite comments and analysis.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 1:39 pm
The whole motive is not to prove that men aren’t victims (especially after reading that study) but rather that the White Ribbon campaign isn’t designed to reject the issues when face but highlight the one’s women do. Further down I’m going to explain this a bit better.
Thanks for accepting your assumption was invalid.
Nice to finally see your motivation – sorry your reasoning is weak. You need to challenge the ideology that binds you and assess the epistimology that underlies it.
Promoters of White Ribbon day continually discount the domestic violence directed toward men, by maintaining an ideology that views domestic violence as a male = abuser/ woman = abused victim.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 11th May 2010 @ 6:08 pm
I disagree. That is not the “current situation”. Take as an example the Family Violence Clearing House pamphlet you linked. Virtually the entire document is devoted to denouncing one research methodology. I’ve been involved in advocacy for victims of abuse for nearly a decade and found this to be consistent. Every time male victims start to gain some ground the goalposts are shifted. That methodology – the Conflict Tactics Scale – was deemed perfectly acceptable UNTIL it was applied neutrally. As soon as it was applied to men as well as women it began to be denounced by those who have an active interest in maintaining the status quo.
From the pamphlet…
Here is their acknowledgement that they wish abuse to be treated differently depending on gender. Just as earlier “research” didn’t even include men as possible victims we now see an acceptance only of methodologies which eliminate male victims from consideration. By introducing so many subjective factors it becomes easy to design approaches which will achive this. For example “motivation” in this context is irrelevant from the perspective of the victim. The victim is still a victim regardless of the motivation of their abuser.
Furthermore their claim that “it is men’s violence against women and children that is the most significant social problem” is extremely dubious. The vast majority of the abuse of children occurs at the hands of mothers. THIS is where children learn violence. This is where cyclical patterns of violence and abuse have their roots.
While their publications may be worded neutrally their actual operation may not be. This is quite common. One response to growing knowledge of male victimisation was to become more careful in being neutral in their public utterances. The actual bigotry practised by their services remains unchanged. Only the language is different.
Adoption by the UN is no recommendation. It was the UN which refused food aid to men in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. It is the UN which is currently the world’s most misandrous organisation.
The people who run the White Ribbon campaign in Australia actually argue openly that there is no such thing as a male victim, that male victims should be disbelieved. One of them is teaching this position to future welfare workers in my state! One of those individuals – Michael Fl**d – is referenced several times in the footnotes of the FVCH pamphlet. What does that tell you?
What is NOT needed is a “companion”. In my mind this would merely be another way of saying those victims don’t count. It’s no different to blacks being made to ride at the back of the bus in pre civil rights USA.
Something the White Ribbon campaign will never tell you…
– The Invisible Boy
At the moment the driving force behind both advocacy and services is gender ideology rather than concern for actual victims. The impact for male victims is devastating. Their marginalisation leads to death from suicide, overdose, illness and even starvation. Ask yourself how many of the more than eighty percent of suicides who are male are victims of abuse. Victims who are laughed at by authorities and crisis services. Victims who are told to go elsewhere, sometimes thousands of miles, because nobody cares. Victims who have to pay thousands of dollars for services available locally for free and paid for by their own taxes but which are denied them because of their gender.
While we continue to marginalise victims of abuse we will NEVER be able to act preventatively. Whilst the cyclical nature of much abuse is acknowledged the reality of it is not. If we treat ALL victims fairly we do stand some chance of preventing much future abuse. That this does not happen is a pointer to the mindset involved. It is a mindset not focussed on the needs of victims but rather on maintaining a monopoly on the issues. It is a mindset devoted to gender political ideology rather than compassion for all victims. It is a mindset that carries no solutions and is a death sentence for numerous victims.
There is still no excuse.
Comment by gwallan — Tue 11th May 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Gwallan,
I support what you’re saying here.
The part you mention about shifting goalposts reminds me of how the definition of rape has changed over the years to the point where it’s practically menaingless. Guys in certan parts of the world are getting locked up in jail without there being forensic evidence and on the mere say so of women who had sex then later regretted it so threw false allegations around which unfortunately stuck in misandric courthouses.
Another worrisome thing I see is in Amanda’s view that it isn’t against human rights to campaighn for women.
I’d say that’s true in many cases but she’s not relating that view to THE CONTEXT it exists within.
For men ARE being abused in domestic situations at least as much as women. There is a substantial and growing body of solid research evidence to support that view (enough to be one of the pillars of Male Studies – a whole new academic filed) so therefore to campaighn ONLY for violence against women is to totally deny the HUMAN RIGHT OF MEN TO STATE PROTECTION WHICH ALL WOMEN ENJOY. Think about the words totally and totalitarian here too. Or as george Orwell penned it in ‘Animal Farm’ (should be required reading for all who call themselves feminists by the way) “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. I’m sure you get my drift.
It’s interesting and perplexing to note that the vast majority of violence done to children is perpetrated by women. Any challengers who wish to counter that claim WILL BE rebutted easily with lontitudinal research.
I’ve worked as a psychotherapist with various abuser groups including those who have admitted comitting domestic violence.
THEY LEARNT THAT BEHAVIOR.
Let that sink in a moment readers………………
Therefore it’s logical to reason that at least some if not a great many of them (the majority?) learnt to be abusive at thier mother’s knee.
Let that also sink in a moment readers…………….
I’m thinking of the greatest amount of child abuse being perpetrated by women.
I’m thinking of how ridiculously easy it currently is with the practice of ‘no fault’ divorce and our secretive star chamber feminist family courts to jettison fathers leaving the mother in sole custody.
And my heart therefore sinks with fear for our precious children.
My biggest fear here is that feminists (read : the vast majority of western women)do indeed create a self fulfilled prophesy.
Can you see where I’m going with this?
Feminist women with a festering grudge against ‘patriarchal’ society monopolise rearing children.
Women commiting by far the most child abuse.
Those children in turn grow up to be abusers.
Feminist women then point to the prevalence of male abusers as proof that they were right all along.
It is indeed a cruel paradox.
One which makes it all the more imperative to break through feminist ideology to a place where fatherhood is as valued as it should be.
And most importantly of all……it’s for the wee lovely innocent bairns too.
Perseus unlike other men who had gone before him overcame the hideous Medusa by polishing his shield so brightly, that when he held it up in front of her and she saw her own reflection, she became as he would have been had he gazed unshielded upon her – a mortified decrepit and lifeless statue. The writhing poisonous serpents which formed from her head reduced as the rest of her to mere impotent stone
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 1:07 am
Gwallan and Skeptic, you’d almost think writing what you have was easy and took little time. That’s how well you put all this.
Excellent information.
Comment by julie — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 9:53 am
Interesting thoughts Skeptik.
Some words of caution: You refer to mothers committing a significant proportion of the violence that children suffer, and I agree to the extent that “violence” is distinguished from sensible discipline. Also, I warn against overestimating the role of social modelling. My concern here is that much male behaviour has been demonized through simplistic and largely invalid appeal to social modelling theory.
Violence (as opposed to loving discipline) by parents may lead to violence in children through important effects other than modelling. Children may reduce their trust and psychological attachment regarding their fellow humans, they may have learned to dissociate from their own feelings and experiences and therefore from any empathy they might have for those they are bullying, they may experience exaggerated defensive aggression in response to perceived threat, they may experience self-anxiety that they seek to allay through dominating others. These processes are unlikely in response to loving discipline, but may be expected from the nasty, rejecting or life-disrupting responses that feminists and now the law prefer to physical discipline.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Yes Hans I’m definitely talking about violence not sensible discipline.
I’m not really sure what you mean in your comments about social modelling theory.
In case I’ve left anything unclear here’s waht I mean.
I’m meaning I can see how mothers so often given sole custody by our misandric ant-fathering institutions are left free to be violent to their children who then grow up to be violent adults.
Feminists can then (paradoxically and cruelly) point the finger at violent young men and say “see we told you men are inherently predisposed towards violence – without following the trail back to trauma caused to them as the children of solo moms.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 6:12 pm
Yes, sorry Skeptik, I went off on a tangent. The issue you describe seems important, a nice self-perpetuating mythology. The good thing about scientific research is that it is capable of throwing light on the truth of such processes.
I was just concerned because you said mothers become violent and children then learn to be violent. That is social modelling theory, and although it does play a part in generating violent offspring, this has been misrepresented and its importance exaggerated by the anti-smacking people. I just wanted to make the point that violence from mothers may produce violence in offspring through various processes other than the children “learning” to be violent.
Just the absence of fathers in children’s lives, or father denigration by mothers, may also contribute to maladjusted and violent offspring. What does it mean when your father is relegated to “every 2nd weekend” significance in your life? When children don’t feel proud of their father, or don’t feel they are allowed to feel proud of him or attached to him, this may affect their self-confidence and sense of belonging in the world and such psychological issues can be expressed through self-destructive behaviour or aggressive reactions to others. Even the lack of an intact family might have similar results.
However, I applaud your thinking concerning the true causes of (increasing) violence in younger generations.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 8:23 pm
Thanks Hans,
You’re right about the kids self confidence thing too.
I heard Warren Farrel put it beautifully some time ago.
He said what will happen to a generation of male kids who’ve been told in subtle and not so subtle ways their genetically inferior to females, that their sex is animalistic, defective, violent and inherently wicked?
He pointed out the huge amount of cultural messages to that effect from Hallmark cards wishing ‘defective’ men harm through to knife blocks shaped like men and misandric TV adverts etc etc. All stuff women consume in vast amounts in the privacy of their owm homes – which due to their feminist organisations often don’t have a father present to help create a more balanced and fair picture of maleness.
He also asked us to imagine what kind of self esteem a generation of kids would have who are basically told half of what they’re made of genetically (the male half) is SHIT.
I suppose there’s a chance therefore such kids will grow into adults who with poor self esteem are somewhat prone to all manner of problematic behavior – substance abuse and addiction, inability to bond and show compassion and empathy, violence etc etc and thus feminists paradoxically create a self fulfilled social prophecy when those adults happen to be males the feminists can point to and say “look, we told you so, males are violent, inferior, etc etc and perpetuate the whole male bashing cycle.
Put it another way I’ve been around feminists most of my life (I’m in my 50s now) and I’VE NEVER,EVER, NOT ONCE IN MY WHOLE LIFE HEARD A FEMINIST SAY A SINGLE COMPLIMENTARY THING ABOUT MEN,PERIOD.
NOR EVEN ABOUT A SINGLE MAN UNLESS IT WERE AN ATTEMPT TO SHAPE HIS BEHAVIOR TO THIER LIKING.
That’s the feminist zeitgiest for you.
In western countries infact wherever feminism takes hold males are today’s niggers.
Just let that sink in a bit readers.
Scary stuff, and all the more reason in my view to wrest child’care’ away from feminists which ANY woman who holds feminst views and attitudes no matter what she may call herself.
However it’s now a 3rd/4th generation thing and thus has become perhaps as intractable as the inculcation of violent attitudes in children brought up in say Hammas culture, or amongst Protestants who for generations have been taught to unthinkingly hate Catholics and vice versa.
To bring this back more on topic.
What the Human Rights Commission (supposedly the VERY PINNACLE of compassionate humane morality in our culture) signal through their entrenched myopic feminist views in that we are indeed in a radical situation whereby dangerously deluded ideological zealots rule.
In my thinking radical situations call for radical (new) ways of responding.The old ways of politely engaging in ‘dialogue’, petitioning politicians and social organisations obviously haven’t worked or we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
I DO NOT advocate violence of any sort, but rather instead that’s why I’ve come to believe such measures as a men’s marriage strike and the en masse takeup of the male pill when it becomes available are so necessary as a vital circuit breaker to what is now an ongoing intergenerational cycle of cultural misandry.
Women broke their dependence on men at large. Women now just depend on a few Alpha male politicians, and treat men at large as second class citizens. Not so much overtly as during the eighties, nineties and noughties as we men have spoken up and named their outright misandry, but covertly in passive aggressive ways by all too often knowing men are now oppressed but refusing to lift a finger to ease the burden of oppression on men.
Put bluntly western women as the modern day entitled uberclass are addicted to the power they now hold (power which most men can barely even dream of) and now I figure western men MUST break their codependence on women hence MGTOW.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 10:27 pm
I have just found this site and have been reading everything with interest. I am a female and until a year ago had absolutely no idea what a raw deal some Father’s in NZ get. My partner has been fighting for some time to protect his children from an unsafe environment. The Police, IPCA, CYFS, lawyers and Family Court have screwed him every step of the way. When he was assaulted by his ex wife he went straight to the Police station only to be told an open handed slap to a woman is considered assault but a closed fist punch to a male is not assault. This was said by a Policeman, in uniform, in the station. My partner was further told to give up and not bother making a complaint as it was very unlikely to be followed up at all. Our local Union of Fathers advised most Fathers give up and walk away because they can not win. Library books on Family Law state the same thing. We too are going to write a letter to the Human Rights Commission now but what else can we do to fight such blatant discrimination?
Comment by Maria — Tue 18th May 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Sorry that was a bit off topic. This is just breaking our hearts and we want to be part of making changes in NZ if possible.
Comment by Maria — Tue 18th May 2010 @ 2:53 pm