Census 2018
I have not seen any comments about bias in this census on this site.
Having seen this in the past I’m wondering if it is only because of the absence of a post.
Here it is.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Yes there was bias in the Census.
They asked women how many babies they have had.
IE how many children have you had.
Men as usual get told to piss off and go to the next question.
Why?
1: Women know how many children they have had and thier answer is factual. If men answered they would only be guessing. IE an unknown child from a one night stand or the child they think is thiers is someone else’s.
2: The effect on income due to parenting can be measured for women but by default ignored for men.
3: The effect on home ownership etc due to parenting can be measured for women but by default ignored for men.
4: The effect on education due to parenting can be measured for women but by default ignored for men.
5: The effect on lifespan due to parenting can be measured for women but ignored for men.
The list goes on, unemployment, mental health, sickness, etc
Summary.
The Ministry of Statistics is run by a bunch of man hating bigots.
Worse than that.
The Human Rights Commision staff filled it in.
Clearly no IQ tests required to get a job their.
I wonder what they were thinking when they got to the question?
“Hey look, a question both men and women can answer but the Minister for Statistics clearly doesn’t give a shit about men or gathering information about them. Ohh it’s a question about parenting. No wonder they excluded them, men and parenting, that’s just wrong. Let’s just pretend it never happened”
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 2nd May 2018 @ 8:53 pm
Kia ora DJ Ward,
Statisticians are anal types. This is a standard measure used all over the world. You provide the answer in your item 1. Items 2 to 5 and lots of other good questions are able to be approached and researched. I feel you doth protest too much.
Statistics do provide a heap of information that you can use and manipulate and research with.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 2nd May 2018 @ 9:17 pm
Hi Allen.
The point is that when a women answers that question then a researcher can then ask what is the income of that woman, or education etc. A researcher cannot do that for men. You therefore cannot approach and research those things from information gathered in the census in relation to men. You can for women. That’s bias. As you point out that question is used all over the world for women but not men, but why? Should we just bend over and take explanation 1? Because taking into account all of the outcomes of 1 are now preventable at a reasonable cost we therefore surrender to the bias due to ignorance and weakness. Females can in relation to 1, abuse, manipulate, and control men and I’m sure none of those things are acceptable to you so why should any of us turn a blind eye to it, shrug our shoulders and say that’s just how it is, accept it and move on.
Do we turn a blind eye to the man and the things done to him just because he’s a man and it’s acceptable or that a women may have to be exposed or held to account for a wrongdoing? That implies social conditioning that in ones subcoucous it’s acceptable to abuse a man to protect a women. Do we turn a blind eye to the newborn baby and any obligations to protect them or act with integrity towards them just to protect the wrongdoings of adult women? That implies social conditioning that in ones subcouncous it’s acceptable to abuse a child to protect a women. Meanwhile researchers can cherry pick information they like from the census in relation to motherhood and its effects on women and with it push any pram they like with the intent of improving the lives of women. The researchers will remain ignorant of men and the issues they experience and the target audience will in turn form beliefs from it.
I don’t think I’m being anal about this issue. I’m not bending over and taking it. Men don’t deserve this bullshit.
How f**cking hard is it to change the question to.
How many biological children have you had?
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 3rd May 2018 @ 7:21 pm
I tend to agree DJ Ward. It reminds me of the huge amount of research on partner violence that asked only women about their victim experience of it, then implied that only women suffered it at the rates measured.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 3rd May 2018 @ 8:15 pm
It is very challenging when starting a research project or investigation, to start with a truly open mind. Such a mind cannot work, as all of the pieces would fall out.
So some compromise must be found, with the hope that this compromise will not have compromised the research out of existence completely.
Many research reports are said to convey more about the assumptions of the researcher, than about the topic supposedly being studied. In other words, the project has ended up being almost a total waste of time. I am sure that David Donoghue and Arthur Allan Thomas and Teina Pora and Mark Lundy can tell similar stories.
Standardisation of questions has value, but only if the questions are valid in the first place.
If our “researchers” have a blind eye to women’s harm of children, they are not likely to be able to measure these harms. Likewise for domestic violence.
Our present focus on bruises and broken bones is largely because these are easily visualised, recorded and measured.
Unfortunately, the broken bones and bruises heal quite quickly, compared to the harms resulting from wrongful development of fear and shame. Subtle, but ask any counsellor whether they would rather be paid a fixed sum of money while a bone heals, or a traumatised individual heals? Trauma recovery is usually specified in years. (Life sentences are specified in years – I wonder if for the same reason? ie how long emotional healing is likely to take in prison, without good counselling.)
So maybe these subtle injuries need to be taken much more seriously by society. And by the caught$ too.)
I forgot to say anything about the gender of the victims. Maybe nothing needs to be said in this respect?
Spot on DJ Ward and Man X Norton!
Comment by Murray Bacon — Sat 5th May 2018 @ 11:11 am
@1 I thought that was a strange question because we already know how many babies are born, and you could object to answering the question.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 5th May 2018 @ 3:09 pm
#35 in the census about income appeared deliberately deceptive.
Your sources of income
. That you yourself got.
. Before tax or anything was taken out.
. In the 12 months prior.
In 34 all sources of income included ‘support’ as a source of income.
35 says income before deductions.
That in many cases would mask male poverty and raise apparent incomes for women.
It got more confusing when the guide gave take home pay plus tax estimates to work out gross pay.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 5th May 2018 @ 3:43 pm
Makes you forget the purpose of a census.
Resembles more a survey
Designed and catered for targeted advertisement.
Comment by JustCurious — Mon 7th May 2018 @ 3:31 pm
And a cross between data mining and a tax declaration form.
Comment by JustCurious — Mon 7th May 2018 @ 3:31 pm
#7 The other way that may be viewed is ownership of income.
If the man’s income is nett pay plus tax then what that is saying is that any support not included is owned by the mother.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 4th June 2018 @ 6:30 pm
@10
this argument went around in circles in the Clark Ministry with Michael Cullen finally declaring child support was a tax.
If a man declares in the cencus that his net income from the taxable amount is whatever.
And the women adds only the support amount to her income.
This avoids the ownership of the tax on the child support that the man has paid.
Apart from the equation not adding up why should the man pay the nominal amount of tax on someone else’s income.
To be fair I haven’t looked at the new child support legislation.
Has anyone else followed the changes?
Comment by Downunder — Tue 5th June 2018 @ 3:51 pm
It appears our census information has been delayed due to lack of participation.
It would be good to know the current ratio of male/female within the population as that is probably in the 8/10 range in many parts of the country excluding Wellington.
Describing the suicide rate in terms of numbers per 100,000 doesn’t take into account the gender distortion in our population.
This along with immigration mentioned here also distorts the reality of not only our suicide rates but the reasons why men are absent in growing numbers from our population.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 26th August 2018 @ 11:01 am
Population figures are due later this month which will be lower than previous estimates.
Now we will be able to see how many men we haven’t got left.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 2nd February 2019 @ 9:10 am
Maybe not …
Statistics New Zealand officials have confirmed the five-yearly national survey, a digital-first experiment gone wrong, will cost $126 million – $5 million more than expected. Now, as officials grapple with filling the gaps in data collected during a chaotic census that one-in-10 people didn’t participate in, it can be revealed that a reduced information release is planned.
Comment by Evan Myers — Wed 27th February 2019 @ 4:51 pm
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/mums-life/300275310/the-mother-load-why-women-still-shoulder-the-parenting-burden
Stupid Humans.
It’s clearly government policy.
As stated in 1.
So the reporter quotes endless information.
Presents generational dependency.
And genuinely trying hard, solo mothers.
But we know nothing of men.
The Census excluded men, used in this, one sided rant.
The author, cannot provide the same information.
Males denigrated in brackets, just deadbeat dads.
What the hell did these women do.
For the males to flee.
Bet the census will never ask that question.
Or the media, even notice, blatant bigotry.
Feminism wins.
The broken boys, flee.
Just a Child Support, cash machine.
Guaranteed custody, for women.
Lawyers win.
The broken boys, fight for usurped human rights.
Lawyers whisper, the cash machine rings.
Guaranteed custody, the fight begins.
Governments win.
The broken boys, slaves sent to work.
Politics prevails, forced taxation, you can’t evade.
Guaranteed custody, the voter says.
I do wonder a little.
Does Stuff have a person who reports on men’s perspectives.
Or is there an Editorial censoring problem.
Guaranteed custody, fathers shall not exist.
Unless they, make warm fuzzy feelings.
Like the Prime Ministers whirlwind romance.
The handsome first daddy.
Guaranteed custody, the family photo shows.
Otherwise obviously, if your not the compliant daddy.
Your a deadbeat dad.
Never hear the census on deadbeat moms.
The census, magically, disappeared them, in a bigoted question.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 17th April 2021 @ 1:31 pm
A number of years back I complained to the press council about the unnecessary and officious use of the term “deadbeat dad” in media articles in New Zealand.
I won’t assume that it was the reason or even a reason but since then we have seen that largely absent from the news.
I don’t suggest that we encourage the use of that term by using it ourselves.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 17th April 2021 @ 1:54 pm