How did they determine that 1 in 3 women REPORT experiencing (IPV) Intimate partner violence ?
NZ women refuge, NZ white ribbon and the Its not Ok campaign, SHine org and all other feminist/ government organisations get the DV statistics from NZ violence clearing house at Auckland University.
I have been in touch with the NZ violence clearing house and they made it clear for me that all their statistics and figures, so they clarified that their statistics and figures are determined from the New Zealand Medical Journal .
Those bias misleading statistics ” 1 in 3 women REPORT experiencing violence in NZ” are determined based on a research and study which was done back in 2004 (12 years old ) by THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL ( attached the link) funded by some feminists and many other biased corrupt government departments. The outdated research/ study authors were two feminists (Janet Fanslow and Elizabeth Robinson).
If you read the research, you will find that the survey/ study/research was done using 2,855 women aged 18–64 years from north Waikato and Auckland only, which make up 0.0017843% which is less than 1% of the total NZ females population ages 15-64 years old. ( No figures or stats how many women are partnered or ever partnered ).
And don’t forget that those women ONLY REPORTED experiencing violence ) so there are no evidence or proof or any police convictions or charges or any evidence that if they have really experienced Violence. They just completed the survey and their experience of Violence never checked if its was genuine or not. I assume that many of those will be psychological ( i feel scared / threatened / harassed ).
I agree that many women and men victims are out there and both need support regardless of their gender, but the stats “1 in 3 women experience violence in NZ” is just SCAM.
What the hell do you call this ? They are just brainwashing people and putting fear in them based on a rubbish research and study was done 12 years ago.
Hi Zayne, Thanks for posting this.
13 years ago now this study was.
Its interesting that “pushed, shoved or had hair pulled” is included as violence.
Its hard to imagine any intimate relationship that wouldn’t include a shove of some kind.
Also “Intimate partners” included male current or ex-partners that the women were married to or had lived with, or current sexual partners”- is how they define intimate partner.
Why don’t they include previous sexual partners?
Why don’t they include lesbian or bi relationships the woman has been involved in?
The study was translated and Auckland is multicultural perhaps they could have asked if the violence they experienced was – in New Zealand.
Sexual violence includes- having sexual intercourse because she was afraid of what her partner might do.
If a man has sex with his wife because she has told him she will go elsewhere for it if he doesn’t, is that sexual violence?
Here is a critique of the UN World Health Organization’s methodology for these studies which was used by Fanslow etc. The critique is long and accurate.
My family was once interviewed by 20/20. The Antics of CYFS and the family court were clearly proven to the viewers. Without approaching us, a contributor to the NZ Medical Journal inserted an item which alleged that we had been coached and manipulated by the TV3 Journalists – an allegation I wouls love to meet and defend. But the writer is a coward and a dishonest prejudiced person unfit to have any opinion published. Further, some years back a policy was introduced whereby women going to hospital were asked about violence and abuse – but males are not asked. Thats fair. By the way – I see STUFF today have an item promoting the women being paid less myth – http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/10422016/Are-women-equal-in-New-Zealand
MOMA thanks for that great info in #2
I was especially inerested in the article on violence linked to abortions.
It contains typical feminist assumptions and omissions.
Also new scientific discoveries help to explain some issues raised.
“A groundbreaking study has found that more than one in every six women who have ever been pregnant in Auckland have had an abortion.”
It just does not add up as being true.
There is already statistics.
“The 14,073 abortions performed in 2013, compared with 14,745 in the previous year, is the lowest number since 1995 (13,652). The general rate was 15.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, down from 16.1 per 1000 in 2012.This rate is the lowest since 1994, when it was 15.3 per 1,000.”
There is interesting ways to look at the figures.
16 abortions each year for 30 years equals 480 abortions per 1000 women lifetimes.
16% of women never have kids.
If we assume every one of those has had an abortion. Some haven’t, some 1, 2 or 3.
Then 840 women who are mothers have had 320 abortions.
“Between 1985 and 2007, the percentage of women having an abortion for the first time (zero previous abortions) declined from 84 percent to 65 percent. In contrast, the proportion of women who have had one previous abortion has increased gradually from 14 percent to 24 percent. The proportion of women who have had two or more previous abortions has also increased sixfold, from 2 percent to 12 percent.”
So 65% one. Plus 24% two. Plus 12% three.
So women who have abortions will have on average have 1.5 abortions.
320 abortions divided by 1.5 equals 213 women.
Due to the assumption that never mothers women having an abortion each.
213 divided by 840 equals 1/4.
So at least 1/4 women who are mothers have had an abortion or more.
Also 480 abortions per 1000 women.
480 divided by 1.5 equals 320 women in 1000
Or about 1/3 women have had an abortion or more.
The 1/6 Figure is not groundbreaking.
It’s is some sort of self reporting study?
And half the women who have had an abortion have lied.
“The figures have been published in two new papers stemming from a survey of about 1400 women aged 18 to 64 in Auckland and a similar number in rural Waikato in 2002, which was focused on finding the rates of domestic violence and associated factors.”
“The new papers show, not surprisingly, that domestic violence is associated with higher rates of both intentional abortions and accidental miscarriages, as well as with higher rates of drinking, smoking and unwanted pregnancies.”
60% of domestic violence starts with pregnancy which is a strong indicator that the male is upset she got pregnant without his consent, or thinks the child is not his. So the female inherently will have a higher rate of abortion.
Miscarriage rates have been found to directly relate to the length of time people have been having sex together. The female body rejects unrecognised foriegn cells of a new partner compared to recognising cells and not rejecting them from a longer term partner.
It is patently false to make any other claim about miscarriages including there being a relationship with DV.
Unwanted pregnancy is also strongly associated with short term, or one night stands (drinking).
“The overall abortion rate of 14 per cent among all women who have ever been pregnant was much lower than in the United States, where 29 per cent of ever-pregnant women under 45 had had an abortion, according to an official survey in 1995.”
That 14% figure is impossible.
Let’s try and make it true.
480 abortions per 1000 women
For 14% then at most 140 women have had (480/140) 3.4 abortions each.
65% have had one. 24 % have had two
91 women have one abortion.
34 women have two abortions.
Equals 159 abortions leaving 321 abortions for women who have three or more.
Or 27 abortions each.
“Women who have suffered domestic violence were also more likely to have had at least one spontaneous miscarriage (42 per cent) than women who had not been abused (28 per cent).”
Agian miscarriage is due to biological factors in regard to exposure time to a males sperm.
Short term volatile relationship will naturally have higher miscarriage rates compared to longer more stable and less violent relationships.
There is no violence miscarriage link as implied.
“The study found that 6 per cent of the Auckland women who had been pregnant, and 9 per cent of the rural Waikato women, had been beaten or physically assaulted by a partner while they were pregnant. For three-quarters of them, the violence started before they became pregnant.”
This is interesting when taking into account the 60% of violence starts with pregnancy stats from Australia.
The bad violent guys that give us all a bad name are just violent.
The rest of the 60% violence started by pregnancy must be very minor.
It’s not beaten or physically assaults.
From the treat her right page.
“If you look at the skills, conditions, degree of effort and responsibility involved in a job, you can compare two different jobs. For example, if a man and a woman are both home care workers, then they will be paid the same wage. This is equal pay. If one woman is a home care worker and another male is a corrections officer, but the skills, conditions, degrees of effort and responsibilities involved are the same, this means they do work of the same value. They should be paid the same wage. This is pay equity.”
So they admit women have equal pay.
They want pay equity.
How come you can posts comments here freely and yet don’t name the journalist so that he has to defend himself. So name the bloody writer and stop hiding behind a computer screen Jesus some people are gutless
I think he was making a connection with the NZ medical journal with this thread and his past experiences.
I don’t think someone who goes on 20:20 is gutless.
Also if you want the persons name Jerry may provide it if asked.
I don’t want his name because if it was me I would be after him,and if he went on 20/20 then why the hell is he not revealing the guys name?? Put the 20/20 article up here and the journal comment as well. WHAT are you afraid of JERRY?
We all know and understand what is happening here in old NZ but by Christ to use this site and vent and then expect sympathy without so much as a “fuck you” I am not going to let you get away with it, SMACKS of HYPOCRISY.
Seems to be some confusion between the 20/20 Journalist and the person who contributed to the medical journal – who presumably was some medical professional and not a journalist. Its a long time back now, and I have not kept that item from the medical journal. However I was sure I had rerpresented Mark Scott as a very professional trustworthy and honest journalist. If you can get him, I recommend him. If there is a fault, then its ours since we never suspected a straight as a die jounalist like him existed, so we mistrusted and were somewhat conservative. But my point was that the very good and accurate 20/20 item was critiqued by someone who did not bother to ascertain their facts – ie: find out from us if we were coached or not. And the Medical Journal printed it and was also disinterested in our standing up for Mark Scott. As I see it, its a grievous slur to accuse such a journalist of “coaching” when it never happened. I contributed this item believing it would add to what we already know, that the facts don’t matter and the authorities/professionals can’t be bothered getting reliable balanced unprejudiced data.
By the way, in an earlier contribution I pointed out that men don’t unite well as a team because they tend to be quite competitive. Also groups like this involve a lot of personal and counter productive attacks on eachother. As stated earlier, I’m here just in case I can help. I have nothing on the line and frankly I am not at all appreciative of the personal attacks.
As for the Medical Journal item, its long gone, I don’t hold a copy and won’t be posting it because of that. But if you all make a practice of treating your friends like this, then unity of purpose will be hard to achieve.
You all have the option to ignore my posts and are welcome to do so.
No worries Jerry, thanks for your interesting contribution. If anyone is really interested in who the NZ Medical Journal writer was they can probably do a search of that journal for 20/20, Family Court and/or CYFS and they will probably locate the piece. Roughly when was this documentary screened?
2004. Title “Bad-Girls”. I will emphasise, that our contribution is under-cooked. Thing is, we are all aware that media will twist and sensationalise whatever we say. So while wanting to contribute, we also wanted to keep our family interests safe. After it screened, we saw the fabulous job Mark had done, and we were filled with regret about being so cautious during the interviews. Never got a second bite at the apple.
This is domestic violence on steroids, or meth.
“But the story of how the woman got there was “long and complicated”, beginning after one of the defendants, Nicola Jones, believed the victim had slept with her ex-boyfriend, Steele told the jurors.”
Wow, poor guy, even when he had escaped and moved on.
She still thought she owned him.
I guess this gets included in the statistics.
There were men involved.
Must have persuaded or manipulated the women.
Guess after the first event.
She didn’t qualify to go to women’s refuge.
Where she would have been saved.
DJ Ward @15: Horrible violence and we await the pussy passes for the female offenders. Interestingly, the Herald article tells us that only two of the women were charged with attempted murder yet we now hear that one of the males has pleaded guilty to attempted murder. Is this the start of the pussy passes, perhaps motivated by the chivalrous male deciding to take the blame for his co-offenders’ actions?
We also know that another woman who was involved in this attack was sentenced late last year to 3 years and 2 months in prison for her violence. So she will be out in about 2 years probably. Given her methamphetamine lifestyle and the calibre of her friends it seems likely she had previous convictions. Well, she’s lucky she wasn’t a male who gently touched a female against her wishes; such a male might get considerably more prison time than she did. Sit back ladies and gentlemen and enjoy the spectacle of this unfolding saga as the males get treated much more harshly than these murderous females. Oh, sorry, I forgot, women are only ever the victims of violence and men the perpetrators so alleging that any female could be violent is just MISOGYNY.
Help me with some research please,
I wrote to Poto Williams labour MP asking where she got her statistic that 312 people were killed by family violence last year. This stat has been repeated for the last three years, I asked if this was coincidence and could the figure be verified.
She replied to me this morning claiming that she ‘believes’ the statistic from “our 2014 mainifesto”.
She said latest reports will be available in may 2017.
My trade is masonry and mortar, I don’t know about ‘manifesto’s’ yet I have tried to look up this one but haven’t found any info or stats at all just the usual about the different types of women that might be victims of DV.
Id like to call bullshit but need to be sure about my facts first.
Her claim of 312 deaths is 277 higher than an average year,- according family violence death review committee which clearly states ‘an average of 35 deaths per year’.
She is supposedly an educated expert on the subject of DV, family violence.
I wonder if Poto Williams MP gets her family violence statistics from wimmins refuge and then just claims ten years worth of deaths all happened last year.
Perhaps someone (MoMA) would consider this worthy of a complaint to Mr Little and/or Media.
I don’t think being a victim qualifies Poto to make up statistics on her govt website and I do wonder how she has got away with these lies for the past three years.
This statistic has been repeated in previous articles from her ,this being the latest: