Getting Real About Domestic Violence and Abuse in NZ

WTFU people, feminism and white ribbon are the problem not the solution.

Feminism was certainly the agent for putting domestic abuse and violence into the public arena.  However its ideological position on domestic violence and other aspects of social life is now the problem preventing New Zealand society moving forward with any effective solutions.  The ‘abuse industry’ with its gender ideologically based  ‘research’, ‘patch’ protection, job protection and straight out political lies are currently allowed more import than solving real harm being done to real people in our society.

New Zealand as a society needs to face up to what is the real extent of violence and what are the forms of violence done to whomever by whomever?  It is not possible to derive any viable solutions based upon half-truths.  Getting real about the violence, and perhaps reducing the scope of what matters, should involve repeal or amendment to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and to stop all public funding towards feminist inspired, gendered based organisations like White Ribbon Campaign.

Feminist theory on what is domestic violence drove the provisions of the DVA 1995 to recognise psychological and emotional abuse.  Increasingly this wide interpretation of abuse has been applied to both sexes in domestic violence research, that is women and men have been recognised as both victims and perpetrators.  From this humanist approach of reality research on domestic abuse, emerges papers from such as the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS), a longitudinal study of the health and development of 1037 children born in Dunedin between April 1972 and March 1973.

As reported in NZ Herald 2006 (1) Professor David Fergusson an author of a domestic violence paper arising from DMHDS found that most situations where violence did occur in couple relationships had input from both sexes.  That is men and women are both victims and perpetrators in domestic violence.  As a result of these finding, and presumably as an academic concerned with facts and wanting to produce solutions, Dr Fergusson wrote to the Children’s Commissioner objecting to the commissioner, Paul Curry, making a statement that ‘almost all family violence is carried out by men on women and children’.  The statement arose as a Commission response to White Ribbon Day.

The orthodoxy, and the blatant disregard for quality abuse research, is well  evident when the same Commission supports the same campaign in Nov 2013, 7 years later.  With an open letter to men about ‘their behaviours’.  The Children’s Commission appears to more interested in maintaining it ideological connections with feminism than in helping the children it is charged with protecting.  If one half of the population does not receive a message to stop their abuse then abuse will continue to feature between such plagued couples and their children will carry on bearing witness to violence in the home.  Being ‘trained’ for their roles in later adulthood.

However it is evident that the DMHDS papers have infiltrated some circles, given the current trickle of feminist ‘academic’s now seeking to move the abuse ‘goal posts’ to a position of  ‘we only mean real violence’.  However there is not the integrity of following through to call for changes to the DVA act. 

We who are actually concerned with abuse and working to reduce its presence in our society call NZ feminists ‘out’ on their shifting sand argument and lack of integrity with follow up to their assertions. In the 2010 Rethinking women and Politics New Zealand and Comparative Perspectives Prue Hyman’s (2)(3) chapter ‘Feminist Agendas and Action in 21st Century: Violence Against Women’

“…there has been considerable media attention to research claiming to show equal incidence of violence {or more accurately, domestic conflict} by gender within partner relationships. Professor David Fergusson, director of the Christchurch Child Development study, a valuable longitudinal of a cohort born around 1980, published material on this in 2005. He reported that ‘domestic conflict’ occurred in 70% of relationships and that women and men showed similar levels of perpetration and victimisation through domestic violence (Fergusson, Horwood and Riddles 2005). He generated  further publicity in November 2006, expressing discontent at the focus of White Ribbon Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  For example, Simon Collins (New Zealand Herald 13 November 2006) gave major coverage to his interpretations and attacks on the Families Commission for focusing on male violence.”

This emotive “…considerable media attention…major coverage…”  and exaggerated language on the impact of this study is simply not borne out by any casual look at mainstream media coverage of domestic violence or listening to any casual social conversations on domestic violence in NZ.  As evident that even in November 2013, the Children’s Commission continues its on-going attachment to the loudest public voice of White Ribbon Campaign of 2013.  It campaign  focus on women with the ‘tact-on’ of children, given readily available real research, is in effect of the message ‘bad male as perpetrator and poor woman as victim’, a male hate/misandrist organisation.  The feminist ideological view remains society’s orthodox view.  Bus stops in urban areas still display huge posters for White Ribbon, the majority of mainstream media paper column writing is on violence against women.

Continuing: “…Feminist psychologist Alison Towns has critiqued Fergusson’s interpretation of the research and the overall limitations of the research…confined to the South Island and aged only about 30 at the time of analysis…”

Efforts to fudge the Otago findings include mention of 1980 as cohort birth date next to 2005 study date (the casual reader would assume age at 24-ish) so as to make them younger people than reality.  Which further dishonestly ignores the fact that the cant and reality fiction figure of  1in4 women as rape victims recited ad nausea by feminism arose out of a university campus ‘study’ in the US in 1985.  The respondents would more than likely have been much younger. Leaving aside the issue of 74% of the respondents judged as raped by the ‘researcher’ Mary Koss for Ms Mag, did not consider themselves as rape victims. By 2005 this cohort were in fact getting towards 32 to 33 years old.  Conflict is known to be at its worst when couples are younger than in surviving partnerships.  However it gets worse.

Continuing: “She argues that the study authors:…they jump from domestic conflict to domestic violence…the mild forms of couple conflict interactions that do not create fear or severe emotional distress…distinctly different from form of violence called domestic violence or battering…in NZ, under the DVA 1995, about 95% of Protection Orders are taken out by women mostly for protection from men…

This erroneous connection of two facets of abuse, those of actual relationship conduct which Hyman claims some as not ‘really’ being domestic abuse put next to an ‘abuse industry’ tool (protection orders) as proof of majority male violence is simply disingenuous writing.  It represents muddled, probably deliberately so, feminist rhetoric. I know without doubt, from personal experience, that protections orders have been granted ex-parte even where there is no history of violence to refer to. They are granted to women on the basis of the low bar threshold that they fear ‘he may be violent’.  These orders are the ‘go to’ tool advised on by lawyers in the ‘abuse industry’ for women to gain the ultimate upper hand in child custody disputes and/or as a means to quickly shut an inconvenient ‘ex’ out, in my case to enable a new romantic pursuit.  A male attempting to get a protection order against a woman would probably need to front up to a defended hearing with the knife still embedded in his stomach. 

Continuing:  “…Most serious assaults recorded by Police are male assaults female, and most male assaults female apprehensions are for domestic violence incidents. (Towns 2006a, p.3)…” The facts are the majority of public assaults are on male victims this follows that the majority of serious assaults would have male as victims.  In the domestic situation, it is well recorded amongst men’s groups the lack of assistance extended to male victims by the Police who have even been known to arrest the male when it has been him that rang the Police.  I know personally, from three separate incidents of assault and a threat to kill that the police will seldom help a male victim.  Further it is also well known that men will seldom seek help for partner abuse because of feelings associated with masculinity, peer derision and the known factor of Police not helping.

I actually agree with the idea that we need to separate what is probably reasonably common conduct within ‘average’ relationships from the conduct that maims individuals and scares the hell out of children growing up.  However this should have involved follow through honesty with Hyman and her ilk advocating getting the DVA 1995 amended.  This should include penalties for false claims to achieve protection orders with all but the worst cases claiming protection, being subject to normal innocent till proven guilty defendable hearings.  Further setting aside nonsense that men hurt and feel less than women so comparative acts of abuse have different outcomes and do not require the same focus.  The suicide stats of men killing themselves at least three times more than women suggest this feminist contention is also without foundation.  Adding to this ‘women more fearful’ scenario, look no further than a 30 to 40 year campaign of fear designed to make women fearful as feminism has demanded the political status of victimhood.  But most importantly a high proof threshold of any claimed violence before any child is denied access to either of their parents.

Turning attention to the dishonesty of White Ribbon campaign (4).  Real scrutiny needs to be brought to bear on the anti-male thrust of this organisation.  The mundane banal association now present in our society between what is bad (eg violence/rape) and being a man or male is harmful to our boys growing up and will, if not already, become a contributing factor to actual violence against society including women amongst the human victims.  At what age do our sons to be protected as children graduate to the status of suspect, to be shamed merely because they are male.  One consequence of shaming is suicide. Given the 4 to 1 incident rate between male and female teens we as a society must take a real look at what scape-goating men as fathers is doing to our sons.

Meantime the White Ribbon campaign continues to focus on the wide definition of domestic violence including emotional abuse, but only if you are a female victim.  As the main media voice ‘expert’ on dv in NZ it carries on its misandrist male hate and denies any reference to the research out of Otago.  Any individual level attempt to have a rational discussion on domestic violence by referring to the Otago study is met with personal attack, deletion of comment and being barred from their Facebook page.  White ribbon is a ‘patch’ protection and ‘abuse industry’ job protector it is not part of the solution to domestic violence.  At the same time our society is full of gutless individuals with access to real information that are more concerned about being ‘attacked’ (that is verbal and physical threats along with career effects in certain social agencies) by feminist ideologues than with actually being part of properly dealing with abuse in society.

Victims are victims whatever their sex and most certainly our society should be questioning why we privilege one victim over another purely based upon their sex.  It would be clearly racist and offensive to decree Pakeha victims are more deserving of help than Maori and yet that is exactly what we allow with female victims versus male victims.

It is also entirely possible that the current focus on women and actively denying men help may actually be creating more women victims. From a NZ Herald article (5) about a father in Dunedin that killed his two children, himself and was no doubt aiming to include his estranged wife.  

From a former friend “he must have been crying out for help, but it wasn’t available or he hadn’t asked the right people.  We’ll just never know.”

Radical feminists and their ilk who seek to deny that males can be victims of abuse, deny that they need help before they ‘snap’ and/or actively seek to block resources for things like non-blaming programmes for male issues and male refuges etc. should take note that by ‘allowing’ and even supporting such facilities, for men, you may very well save the life of a child or woman.

I looked at US spouse murder trends through the years. Husband/boyfriend killing show a reduction through the period since refuges and respite help became more readily available to women. Before the late 1980’s the murder/killer rates for both sexes were similar. This idea of actual reduction in murder rates ignores the issue of jury bias where men as spouse killers are 9 times more likely to be convicted of murder than women.

Given that this avenue has not been extensively highlighted given the millions of words of feminist ‘analysis’, speaks to dishonesty where the actual ‘end game’ is not resolution but to maintain employment in the $billion dollar abuse industry.

Shame on you White Ribbon and your ilk!


2. Another ‘call to arms’ to re-envisage the tired agenda of feminism.  Amongst the general dishonesty of this book promoting an ideology was that there was no  connection of feminism to the neo-liberal agenda.  The major economic system and social  influence of our current historic times and something addressed as much as 5 years before by a couple of feminist writers.




About mountainmax

My musings including poetry and photography reflect myself as a man concerned about the world, our country (New Zealand), our society, our community and relationships between us humans…being... I have through my life worked in menial jobs, self employed manual and trades, computer operations, farmed as a left over hippy dream (actually more of a punk with internalised spikes) on a small holding, and photography including watching that dream evaporate during the recent recession with the failure to make this as a business pay...I recently worked in a support role at a ‘not for profit’ outdoor education and pursuits centre located in the bush (wilderness)...4 years in the bush was enough for me and I am currently enjoying being back in the city and the life style that goes with that...that and working under corporate style management complete with 'green-washing' to claim environmental integrity that frankly did not exist. While the ethical value of the education in my employment held my attention, the ethical value seems to excuse a poor rate of pay. For me this is reflective of how we as a nation (in common with many other western societies) values contribution to our society. At the other extreme we have a financial 1%er as our current Prime Minister who made his fortune manipulating money in the neo-liberal/globalisation marketplace which he continues to hold up as the nirvana in our lives... I am now in the autumn (fall) season of my life. From this vantage I now appreciate the learning from all manner of experience including the exposure through a radical father to 1960 and 70’s political agitation, human angst of relationship failure, gender conflict in our family legal systems, mental illness and the real life effects of drugs... All overlaid with more recent formal academic study in sociology with some education, anthropology, social policy and history within which gender issues were specifically engaged with... The ‘melting pot’ of experience gives me the cynical idea that most of us are manipulated ‘rats’ on a treadmill. Living life wrestling with barriers to progress as individuals and between us in community, in a world run by psychopaths... … Perversely, I have a sense of excitement at the world we live in, in particular the expansion of the possibilities to communicate to a wider audience, to get past the ‘gate keepers’ in the digital era and to communicate your own truth, to tell our own stories. (see posted extended reasoning for my muse).
This entry was posted in Domestic Violence, Feminism-radical/gender, Feminist myths, Gender wars/gender conflict/angst, Misandry, male hate/denigration, New Zealand society and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Getting Real About Domestic Violence and Abuse in NZ

  1. Greg Allan says:

    Hi Max. You might find the following link interesting. It’s from a manual for judicial officers in Victoria, Australia. It supposedly defines how to determine whether a male is a victim. Orwell would be jealous.

  2. Greg Allan says:

    Should have added…Where they believe the man to be a victim the instruction is to refer them to the Men’s Referral Service. This organisation only deals with men as perpetrators. Counselors of my acquaintance would never refer a male victim to that service because they would consider it a further abuse of that victim.

    • mountainmax says:

      Thanks for the link…I can just imagine how the woman’s accessment would read in contrast. Had enough history of female violence toward me along with counter accusations and non action by Police to totally get how males recieve help in our systems. Still we can only but keep telling our stories as the fems did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s