Dear Mr Davis

I am writing to express general disappointment at your decision not to host the men’s summit in April. Apparently you had made a commitment around Christmas time but then pulled out with the statement “Not only will criticism of feminism NOT be tolerated, even ALMOST criticism will not be tolerated”. For an ex-Primary school Principal this is fairly questionable English!

I personally do not know what happened for you to change your mind. No-one was going to criticise women; the point of the summit was to highlight some of the issues men are increasingly facing every day. No-one begrudges women in their pursuit of what they perceive to be unfairness in society. However when that discontent manifests itself into verbal and literary ‘attacks’ against the male character what are men supposed to do? Accept it?

The media is awash with articles about how evil men are. The Herald has had, almost daily for a period, numerous stories citing women who have been the victims of domestic abuse. The stories are never validated, fictitious names abound and the man’s side of the story is never told. What are we to make of these ‘sagas’? Are they true? Where is the corroborating evidence?

What the media DON’T relate are the equally numerous incidents where women have abused men. Men tend to suffer in silence partly because their complaints are not taken very seriously. And they tend to only make a complaint in extreme cases of violence. Yet there is sufficient evidence to suggest that at least half the incidents of domestic violence are perpetrated by women against men.

Fathers are generally the ones that miss out in custody battles and are, almost exclusively, the ones that can find themselves the recipient of an ex-parte protection order.

Our suicide rate (amongst young men) is 2nd to none in the western world. Don’t you think that alone was reason enough for you to at least attend the summit? What were you afraid of? If you had gone and spoken with conviction about Fatherlessness, youth suicide, PTSS suffered by ex-servicemen, declining education standards of boys (compared to girls), shortage of male Teachers, ……’ how could that be contrary to Labour Party Philosophy? What possible damage could have ensued?

If you had attended you would have gained considerable respect and would have gone part way towards addressing what are real, salient issues for New Zealand men. I fail to see how it could have placed you at odds with your political affiliations? Your support and attendance could very well have boosted the support of a party that was partly founded to address unfairness and exploitation in society