Suzanne Snively – More Rubbish Research
A report (see here) commissioned by the Public Service Association (PSA) has made a number of recommendations it says will save businesses millions and help victims break the cycle of violence.
Report author, Suzanne Snively puts the cost of domestic violence to New Zealand business at $368 million a year.
Recommendations include workplaces adopting domestic violence policies to train employees about abuse and implementing a national policy allowing victims of domestic violence to take up to 10 days off work as special leave.
Ms Snively notes; while men are also victims of domestic violence, her paper focuses on women as they are more likely to suffer severe and persistent abuse, with one in three New Zealand women abused by a partner or ex-partner in their lifetime.
Health Research Council of New Zealand
Suzanne Snively is an economic and business entrepreneurialism strategist. She was previously a Partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers and is Managing Director of MoreMedia Enterprises in Wellington. A US citizen, Suzanne arrived in Wellington as a Fulbright Scholar serving on Fulbright New Zealand’s Board for 17 years (Chairing for seven years). Suzanne was a Director of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, R A Hannah & Co and Wellington City ‘s Capital Holdings. She is currently on the Whitireia New Zealand, Wellington Institute of Technology (WelTec), Diabetes New Zealand and Health Research Council of New Zealand Boards. Suzanne’s New Zealand Order of Merit is for Services to Business and she was one of the 100 people honoured by the Queen in Women’s Suffrage Year in 1993. Her memberships include the Institute of Directors, the Association of Economists and Global Women.
The launch of this ‘research’ (media hype) is being co-ordinated with a private members bill put forward by Green MP Jan Logie. The detail is not available at this time but will no doubt seek to formalise the contents of the report into legislation.
What we are seeing here is an attempt to transfer the same ideology that has dogged men in the Family Court into the employment arena – the employer becomes the big stick and employment law the new weapon. This strategy has serious implications for the working man in New Zealand, and his ability to deal with allegations of domestic violence.
It will be interesting to review the parliamentary debate, when it is clearly acknowledged as feminist and gendered legislation – assuming of course that it does get drawn in a ballot.
If you want to see the cut of Ms Snively’s jib, perhaps look at the second story on http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/
or read about here here, scroll down to the posting on 30 January 2014 ….
http://www.transparency.net.nz/
Comment by golfa — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 3:21 pm
Her report has already cost the taxpayer how many thousands of dollars?
Let me also take a wild, wild, stab in the dark –
Like spouting out what she thinks further savings NZers can make following her proscriptions, just like her feminist peers (Busche, Robertson and co, her feminist ‘research’ hasn’t laid out the COST of even more protection for women in NZ.
Far from being unprotected, I’ll bet my right arm she isn’t aware that all NZ women carry a gun too.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 3:28 pm
Snively is not new to the scene – find one of her efforts from last century – here
Comment by Downunder — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 3:42 pm
This isn’t the first time that Susan Snively has been mentioned on MENZ.
This 2000 article by Stuart Birks; Violence and ‘Independent’ Policy Advice reveals that the supposedly independant researcher was actually a member of the Woman’s Refuge fundraising Foundation.
Comment by JohnPotter — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 6:52 pm
Warning about unmanaged conflicts of interest (or managed to be in the interests of the staff, over the public):
Transparency International New Zealand -not what it is cracked up to be
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 6:58 pm
Ms Snively (good name huh?) notes
This is a fine example of manipulative, misleading, typical feminist spin.
Firstly, it may well be true that women are ‘more likely to suffer severe and persistent abuse’ but so what? Some men also suffer severe and persistent abuse at the hands (and mouths) of female partners. I have known at least as many men as women subjected to frequent criticism, complaints, snide comments, backstabbing character assassination and other forms of severe and persistent psychological abuse. I have known some men subjected to persistent physical abuse from female partners causing wounds, black eyes and broken limbs. Though I would accept the number of women subjected to serious physical violence from partners is higher, I do not accept that anyone should be allowed to deny or ignore male victims; that is simply sexism of the worst kind.
Secondly, it would never be tolerated for anyone to apply Ms Snively’s reasoning to any situation in which women are a minority. Gender differences in workplace deaths and serious injuries are greater than gender differences in partner violence (almost 100% of workplace deaths each year in NZ are suffered by men) yet imagine the outcry if a researcher proposed workplace safety programmes for only men, excluding women! Men are more likely to die from the top ten illnessess that kill people, but imagine the cries of ‘discrimination!’ if health funding was made available only to men who suffer those illnesses.
Thirdly, the claimed figure of one in three NZ women ‘abused’ by a partner or ex-partner may be correct depending on the definition of ‘abuse’, but this will NOT apply to ‘severe and persistent abuse’ as the statement implies it does. If some definition of ‘abuse from partner or ex-partner” gave rise to 1 in 3 women saying they experienced it, you can bet that a similar proportion of men would report the same thing. I doubt there is any person in NZ who hasn’t experienced behaviour from every one of their partners (beyond very short relationships) that would fit into modern feminist definitions of ‘abuse’ as applied in our Family Courts every day.
It’s incredible that anyone can get away with the gender discrimination shown by Ms Snively, or her deliberately misleading public statements. But denigrating men seems to be considered acceptable, even laudable.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 8:02 pm
Wow, what an achiever (go getter). Some people have energy to burn, lol.
………..
I would have thought NZ had this kind of research already since we are generally up with the same play as Europe, America and Australia.
It would be great for a place like India, IMO.
Perhaps it’s a money spinner like a percentage of marriage certificate fees in America (perhaps not all states, yet) goes to Domestic Violence programs, awareness, lobby. That came about through research.
…On another note, government departments and councils have these sorts of programs to do. The rest of the day they send sexist jokes to each other. Will it really make a difference? Do we even measure the impact?
Comment by Julie — Mon 31st March 2014 @ 10:28 pm
NZ carries out excellent quality research in medicine (which sometimes has a small social component), science, engineering.
NZ social sciences researchers are hampered by low spending priority and low expectations from politicians. Justice Department research publications are of a low standard, not meeting even minimum academic research standards, for example professional quality statistical analysis, lacking analysis of all viable options and lacking analysis of perverse effects. This is why NZ’s DPB is structured so differently to Singapore’s and they have much fewer problems with the quality of DPB parenting.
Our Justice Department only offers much lower salaries for its researchers, than say Treasury offers.
Pay peanuts, get women?
I am not being rude to these women, the Department scuttles their research by extremely limited budgets for the research and the women are not given a reasonable opportunity to perform to professional standards. NZ pays a large social price for policies based on ideology, rather than good quality research.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 1st April 2014 @ 8:14 am
Murray,
With respect, I can’t comprehend your comment. Better parenting? How do you figure Singapore’s parents are BETTER parents than NZ parents?
I also can’t see how the structure of a benefit makes parents better or worse. (I am assuming DPB means ‘sole parent benefit)
Please share some light.
Comment by Julie — Tue 1st April 2014 @ 10:37 am
Sturat Birks wrote a paper critiquing Suzanne Snively’s Cost of Domestic Violence paper:
COMMENTS ON THE ECONOMIC COST OF FAMILY VIOLENCE
(A selective critique of Snively, Suzanne (1994), The New Zealand Economic
Cost of Family Violence, Department of Social Welfare, New Zealand) For link, see Downunder’s comment at #3 above.
Some readers have taken Sturat Birk’s paper as demolishing Suzanne Snively’s paper.
Although it points out a large number of dubious assumptions, in my opinion it does not demolish (or even claim to demolish) Suzanne Snively’s paper.
I suggest that there are other issues which she has not included at all and should have. It is impossible to guess at the net impact of all of these issues, but I suggest that Suzanne Snively’s general conclusions still stand and my guess is that she has under-estimated the total costs.
My concern is that her paper has selectively attempted to calculate the cost to women as victims, without looking at all of the victims. In particular, in my guess, she has significantly under-estimated the costs and loss of utility of life that is dropped onto children, in the main by mother perpetrators.
These types of damage assessments are in their early stages. Take them with a grain of salt and discuss them carefully. We need to be balanced and form a view that will in fact lead to improved social policies.
But in the longer run, this type of study can help to drive major improvements in public welfare, by illuminating sectors which fail to perform and need replacement – eg familycaught$.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 1st April 2014 @ 11:02 am
These are dangerous games being played by silly women.
You get a pro feminist agitator like Brenda Pilott secretary of PSA, steering funding from a workers union to a feminist dreamer like Snively who uses a report profile to advance the ’cause of women’.
Don’t forget the PSA includes workers like Edward Livingstone who was subjected to a workplace investigation because he was involved in a Family Court Case and this would be his source of support – yeah right.
Take also this report extract here;
Straight out of the all men are bastards manual and what do women want?
We want 10 days a year Family Court Leave/Special leave for women and that’s just for a start.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st April 2014 @ 11:41 am
I understand (I may be wrong) that in Singapore, the amount of money paid out for their DPB, is related to the history of income tax payments. This offers more encouragement to women to get good qualifications and to develop a strong work history. Women who work hard, are more supported on DPB. Women without good work history’s, know that it would be very hard for them to exist on DPB. This discourages them from embarking on solo parenthood by choice. This protects the children and in the end also protects society by reducing the number of poorly parented children conceived and born.
In NZ, the DPB option is most attractive financially to women who don’t have good work options. There is a degree of correlation between work history and general mental health condition. As a result, the DPB is more attractive to women with mental health problems than for women with good work history and this affects their decisions about bearing a child. The most hazardous situation for babies and young children, is to be left alone for long periods of time, with one adult who is inattentive or unskilled at listening and responding to the baby.
My shins are hurting!
So far I have only discussed DPB parenting, which isn’t the whole story.
Children of married parents are fairly well protected from their parent’s limitations, by the presence of the other parent in the household. On top of that, parents who have stable relationships, usually have fairly stable mental health. Double whammy, so that it is much safer to grow up in a stable household with two parents.
It is all uncomfortably close to eugenics. On the other hand, the details of NZ’s DPB policy is probably our most expensive single legislative blunder.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 1st April 2014 @ 12:45 pm
Thanks Murray. I appreciate your comment.
I don’t know what to say about your shins. I suspect that will be because you like to work on the floor. I don’t suppose a table can accommodate your tech gear.
………
I wonder what Singapore does with the mums who were stay at home parents, or too young to have a long enough career or as you mention ‘mentally ill’ single mothers? Surely they must have them.
One of these days I’d like to connect with overseas groups supporting single mothers and fathers. I haven’t looked at Singapore, yet. Thanks again.
Comment by Julie — Tue 1st April 2014 @ 5:13 pm
Here is a Radio New Zealand interview with Suzanne Snively.
Her research estimates that 18,000 women will lose their job this year because of domestic violence – Really?
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 2:48 pm
17 how exactly?
Comment by Scott B — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 3:03 pm
It’s one of those ‘I know how many grains of sand there are on a beach’ situations – I’m the economist, now go count them to prove me wrong.
If they get their two weeks women’s leave out it, they’ll be happy for a while, but only for a while mind you, then they’ll want something else.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 3:25 pm
I know, I just wish that the media would start asking questions and searching for proof themselves and then exposing these people!
Comment by Scott B — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 3:56 pm
That’s what we do here Scott – FAB.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 4:24 pm
21 I know, but we’re not getting anywhere or any attention.
Comment by Scott B — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 6:26 pm
That’s a matter of quantity and quality in our posts – we don’t have enough authors who believe they can make a difference.
I encourage people to write the story, tell it true, (maybe even charm it a little crazy) and see what happens.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 6:32 pm
23 I agree but maybe this site isn’t the right tool. I see the Facebook group NZ Men fed up with the family court has thousands of members now. Maybe it is time to switch to there, as good as this site has been/is.
Comment by Scott B — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 6:37 pm
Which site is that?
Comment by Downunder — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 6:42 pm
Which site is that? https://www.facebook.com/NewZealandMenFedupwiththeFamilyCourt
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 9th April 2014 @ 8:51 pm
There is no doubt that social media sites easy collect followers – groups are part of the global community – pages are visually more advanced and appealing.
There are many ‘howevers’ when drawing comparisons with a site like this, in particular, retention of information, searching, and writers interfacing with search engines.
There is a tendency to judge this site’s effectiveness by the number of commenters rather than unseen readers.
I also think there are human aspects such as instant gratification and commonality that attract followers to social media, when that site’s focus is the immediate focus of their lives. In the absence of social media, Menz operated much more like this in its earlier days, although many of us were subject to vicious political retaliation – circumstances didn’t allow us to gather larger numbers; there is a much greater perception of the safety in numbers formula operating alongside social media.
For those here, perhaps their experience is to a certain extent in the past, but not forgotten, and the approach is one of continuing observation and recording of issues that arise not only because of feminist protagonists but also for the benefit and convenience of the state; boring perhaps, but without this there would be little awareness or discussion, and also an unrestrained environment for propaganda to thrive.
It is one thing to know what happened to you (as an experience) comforting to find you are not alone, but another to understand how it happened, who’s responsible, and how the hell those people involved get away with what they are doing.
That’s not always so obvious.
Yes there is change, and while I see this site’s general focus narrowing somewhat, its necessity has not diminished. While we may not be at the centre of a numbers game, there is still a pivotal role to be fulfilled here, even if it is lacking input from many of the old campaigners.
Technology aside, I think we have been here before.
‘Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.’ â€- Cicero
Comment by Downunder — Thu 10th April 2014 @ 10:19 am
Just to make the point, other sites are interested in what is happening in New Zealand.
If you Google the post heading, “Jackie Blue Drops the Ball” which was posted yesterday, you will find it has already been picked up by mensnewsdaily.com as shown here:
Post headings are important for different reasons, this would have been redistributed because of content.
One person watching this site has made a distribution to their own global audience – it is hard to judge the end number of readers, and the actual roll on effect from this; but one thing is for sure, this post would not have been distributed anywhere if it didn’t have author, and it could not have had any affect if it wasn’t posted.
With a stand alone website we are in a different environment to social media. It is not a position where you can judge your own efforts by visual acknowledgment but one where you have to a bit of faith in your writing and put your case out your for readers to digest.
The few comments and criticisms that come with any post here are no indication of how any wider audience has reacted to your point of view.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 10th April 2014 @ 11:41 am
Agenda 21 in full flight in Nevada = right now……….
Notice how the environment is being used to move people off land, ( RMA here in NZ ) to refuse them the right to grow a business and become prosperous……making you poor is part of the plan….deliberately depriving you of your rights to life, liberty and property are exactly what is at stake here – notice the support of the PEOPLE for this MAN………Public land that the PUBLIC support being used to FARM FOOD…..but its NOT what the Govt are forcing on the people………they are no longer serving the peoples interests…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpnFG4mfWo4&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg
Ever wondered why you have so many difficulties getting progress with a Resource management request – at huge cost – you are often deprived of your right to do things on your own land – here is the reason why this is so……..Control and profit for a few…….
This might explain to you all why our very own DOC have been armed with AR15 Assault rifles in 308 calibre – if you protest corporate demands to mine NZ soil under TPP, you will be marched off the land at GUN POINT to protect PROFIT…….think Im joking……..watch this space……just like in the US, the EPA do the same thing – watch this man and his family be destroyed by the corrupted…….
A farmer in Central Otago NZ = just spent $3 Million on an RMA application to FARM and supply water to his farm – he is still no better off – still fighting a corrupted system……….
Comment by hornet — Fri 11th April 2014 @ 9:24 am
Surprise surprise – heres the real reason the BUNDY family were moved off PUBLIC LAND……
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html
The Beureau of land management – the BLM is no different than the EPA and or DOC here in NZ – this is why this mans rights were decimated – his business, his livelihood and his family were deliberately destroyed to protect Corporate interests……….Oil Fracking…….
It also explains why the BLM killed turtles – which they claimed they were there to PROTECT………
Why is this relevant to MENZ – because it involves directly your rights to own property …… and to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure…….something I have seen directly we are NOT protected by in NZ……..secret warrants obtained in secret courts with NO DUE PROCESS – to seize FAMILY property when you fail to meet unjust and excessive demands in child support is yet another means to an end…….
Comment by hornet — Fri 11th April 2014 @ 9:41 am
Suzanne Snively has written a new report about the total costs of domestic violence.
I have not read it carefully yet, but it appears fairly well put together. This might sound ungenerous, but these types of study are extremely complex and internationally the topic is not yet well developed, so I am complimenting her work, not running it down.
My own estimates are for higher total social costs than she has come up with.
However, her report claims that these figures are rising dramatically.
I do not believe that this is correct.
Several commentators in media have criticised her work, claiming that the total costs are much lower. They are focusing on medical treatment costs and they are probably right.
However, by far and away the largest social costs resulting from child abuse and violence, are the loss of quality of life, that many children suffer. This shows up as disabled quality of intimate and family relationships, dysfunctional family lives, impaired ability to work. These disabilities are sometimes partly resolved through the persons life and in some cases, never resolved, their entire life is significantly damaged. It is difficult to appreciate the cruelty of this, without seeing these lives close up, seeing the attempts to develop and recover and seeing the poor outcomes despite genuine attempts to ameliorate.
In my opinion, I believe that Susanne Snively has under estimated these social disability costs.
No child should ever be dropped into these types of situations.
Causes:
Suzanne Snively has put most of the damage down to children witnessing domestic violence. Correlation is not causation. I suggest that a better choice of root cause lies in babies being emotionally neglected by their caregivers (being mainly…..).
These costs have been at horrifically high levels for all of NZ’s history. There is nothing new here.
The only changes in recent history, that have increased these social costs, are:
1. the introduction of DPB, leading to more children born to disinterested and unmotivated solo mothers.
2. the familycaught$ denying access and driving many men out of their children’s lives (and women too)
Countering the above changes, have been the beneficial effects of the ready availability of contraception and abortion. These positive changes have acted to partly hide the two destructive forces listed above.
So, no really major changes in social hazards to children in the last hundred and fifty years, that I can remember. Quite the opposite of Susanne Snively’s dramatic claims.
So, I hope that her message about the large social cost of child neglect gets through to parents, voters and policy makers.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 13th November 2014 @ 9:44 am
Suzanne Snively has presented her study very cautiously.
She has shown 3 scenarios, from the lowest assumption of child abuse, to the highest assumption of child abuse.
The lower assumption 1.9% was based on CYFs statistics for proven child abuse. This figure is generally accepted as being unrealistically low, as many cases of abuse never come to CYFs attention. In my opinion, cases of serious emotional neglect rarely are picked up by CYFs, even if notified, typically there is very little hard evidence (until it is far too late to do anything constructive anyway). This lack of evidence leaves CYFs in a position to write off the case as unproven and get back to the most obviously short term pressing cases.
The highest estimate 28%, is based on opinions of social workers. This is a guess in the dark, as social workers do not see all children. Also, as there is no clear definition of abuse, different observers judge to a different standard.
One robust indicator that covers all NZ children, is the children assigned to remedial reading as they enter school at 5 years, at close to 20%. This represents a judgement by the school teachers on general readiness to learn. It picks up much emotional deprivation, but not all. This is probably a more reliable measure, set at a uniform standard across NZ.
Productivity costs for perpetrators 6.2 she calculates productivity losses for perpetrators. Again her estimate is too low, as she hasn’t taken into account the degree of wasted hearings that perpetrators and also innocent accused are forced to attend. As well, her calculations haven’t included the largest cost to perpetrators, that is their loss of value of live, their dysfunctionality in relationships, parenting and work, that cost these people dearly throughout most of their life. (They are almost always victims in their own right, of their own childhood abuse, usually at the hands of their own mothers. Perhaps they are not acknowledged as victims, due to their sex – male) Of course, there is a possibility of double counting, as victim and as perpetrator, so proper care is required to ensure that the set of definitions used permits only single counting of each loss.
Susanne Snively has worked at assessing disability based on mental health classifications. This list of classifications, in my opinion, fails to capture disability due to loss of executive function, ie dysfunctionality. This is usually the largest downstream lost of value of life/living, for emotionally neglected and emotionally damaged children. The dysfunctionality affects work performance, household management, parenting skills, intimate relationships, social relationships, wider family relationships…
This issue is also a huge burden onto NZ parents parenting skills, so the losses are also passed on to their children, in many cases.
I read about traumatised children in Gaza Strip with horror. But the reality is that our children are more similar to theirs, than different! Lets not kid ourselves.
We have a huge burden of social costs, dropped onto a fairly large proportion of our population. Most suffer in relative silence, a few murder and rape, many don’t take good enough care of their children, despite their best efforts. Nearly a million NZers live fairly crushed lives, for no good reason.
Arguments about cost of abuse, a dollar up or a dollar down, don’t address the issue. Help inexperienced parents more.. We have to protect children, from unskilled parents. Not as punishment, but as protecting children.
Lets act to protect all children…….
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 14th November 2014 @ 9:58 am
Executive Functions – explained
Improving the Transition, Reducing Social and Psychological Morbidity During Adolescence
A report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor
May 2011
See page 27:
4.5 Cognitive versus non-cognitive skills
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 15th November 2014 @ 7:26 am
From the post.
“Ms Snively notes; while men are also victims of domestic violence, her paper focuses on women as they are more likely to suffer severe and persistent abuse, with one in three New Zealand women abused by a partner or ex-partner in their lifetime.”
So if coercive control is equal, her comment is false.
As coercive control, is persistent abuse.
And as many men, experience a male version.
So as for talking about rubbish, I saw a video.
The local tip, being the river.
Trucks lining up, one after the other.
Tipped strait in off the bridge, and consumed by the river.
Workers, helping to coordinate things.
I don’t even need to name the country, as there’s many.
So current plastics, are a wasteful thing.
And by the truckload, the ocean fills with rubbish.
But I can easily see, a better future.
With plastics that can decompose, in an environment.
Collected in a heap unsorted, and fed into the factory.
Outputting, some new useful substances.
What % of plastics, could it recycle.
If all the consumer plastics, were process able.
Robots at the conveyor, doing sorting and removing lids.
A process for nappies, bottles and food containers.
So even when the rubbish, makes the feeling of hopelessness.
That the problem, seems impossible to fix.
Even if it takes time, the rubbish may become useful.
It’s a bit late for the ocean, and the west’s tip mountains.
There feminism, is the same as an ocean of rubbish.
It still spews more rubbish, and few can manage to stop it.
For those involved, it’s just how businesses is.
Wasn’t it easy, in the bright lights of the supermarket.
When its the only option for sale, feminism like rubbish.
Feminism examines females, as victims.
Yet she acknowledged, males can be victims.
I call it, hate men feminism.
Victims exist but as they are men, they don’t exist.
Men no different, than feelings towards rubbish.
The rubbish sadly, grows.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 1st August 2022 @ 6:38 pm