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
Human Rights Commission
PO Box 12411
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.
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.