I have been following the discussion following on from redlogix post on DV. The broken post and men dominate discussion post.
I thought RL post brave and honest and an invitation to explore a dark underside to our beautiful country.
This opportunity was lost when it turned into a bun fight.
Offence can only be offered.
I value most contributors here, either being informed or forgiving as they know not what they do.
As with all communities you are gonna get folk that are harder to like and that is one of the strengths of this site.
I actually like Red for the most part so honestly for me it’s the politics not a personality thing.
If any man wants to write about domestic violence issues from a male perspective I will welcome that if they can do so without running MRA-like lines or trying to undermine women or feminism. If they want to run those lines then they need to be prepared for a fight, because women are having to deal with that stuff at the cutting edge in ways that many people here are unaware of, and there are real world consequences for women from what Red was saying. Until that awareness changes it will always be a conflict.
btw, I didn’t see it as a bun fight and I’ve been in quite a few gender convos on ts in the past. I saw a whole lot of people step up in Red’s thread and disagree clearly and with good political argument. Haven’t read much of Tracey’s thread yet though.
Men’s Rights Activists. A political movement which focuses on some issues that affect men but does so in the context of attacking and undermining feminism and women. It tends to reject political analysis of systemic oppression and instead tries to make out that men aren’t affored privilege and power by the patriarchal systems that we live in.
For example, the idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue. It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women, and the reasons underlying that that are societal and structural. It sets up strawmen such as the idea that domestic violence is gendered comes from feminists thinking all men are violent or somehow bad, when in fact feminism doesn’t say that. It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.
that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue.
Logically that does not follow. Or do feminists not consider men to be human?
It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women
Not a strong statement given the many, many studies that confirm women perpetrate all manner of abuse and violence, and it is probably more due to a weakness of limb than purity of heart that holds them back from achieving equally bad statistics with men.
But I can see why this framing is important to you and I’m not going to disrespect that.
and the reasons underlying that that are societal and structural.
Not much quibble on that in general. Agreed.
It sets up strawmen such as the idea that domestic violence is gendered comes from feminists thinking all men are violent or somehow bad
OK so not all men are abusers.
It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.
But now we all are and you’re going to punish us all for it.
At least that is how I read it; maybe you’d care to clarify?
“Not a strong statement given the many, many studies that confirm women perpetrate all manner of abuse and violence, and it is probably more due to a weakness of limb than purity of heart that holds them back from achieving equally bad statistics with men.”
is where your problem lies.
Or perhaps this particular bit “and it is probably more”
and remember the above was in response to
“It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women”
You cannot see the “by far” qualifier – you are blinded to it – perhaps by the abuse you suffered or maybe some other reason but the qualifier is there imo so that debate CAN occur not as a poke to get you to retaliate – which is how I interpret your response to weka’s sentence.
Can you understand what I am saying?
Can you see that I am NOT attacking you?
Can you see that your response was disproportionate to the sentence that you responded to?
Can you see how that could escalate the intensity or heat of the discussion?
That is just one example – I ask you to seriously consider your emotions around this, your judgments about yourself and others, and what you want to achieve from this.
I wrote it Xanthe so believe me I don’t need to read it again. Sure it may not be dialogue (I could argue that but I’ll accept it), but it came from a place of compassion and genuine desire on my part to add something positive to the situation. Is that violence to you?
Marty ” Can you see that your response was disproportionate to the sentence that you responded to?
Can you see how that could escalate the intensity or heat of the discussion?”
Because you find the reasonable suggestion that we look for the underlieing drivers of domestic violence rather than treating it as a male problem ….. uncomfortable and challenging
you attack and place the blame for that attack on the way he presented the suggestion.
That is both disingenuous and a form of violence
As you well know!
I have considerable experience of bullying. I know it when it happens
Spot on marty, the quailifier is the thing that makes the position inclusive.
Red, in the past week I’ve made a few comments as to why I won’t engage on the content of your post or comments. I’ll add another one. Every step of the way I have seen you misuse and IMO willfully misinterpret other people’s arguments. Here is a classic example that is very easy to see. You just selectively misquoted me. That alone will stop me from talking to you on the content.
Unlike most responses I get, I went to the trouble of carefully requoting your comment, pretty much sentence by sentence so as it was clear what I was talking about and the dialog might flow better.
Then I made a response to pretty much ALL of what you said. I was lot less selective about it than most people are. The bit I mostly left out was your first para because I didn’t have any issue with it. Ironically enough it wasn’t until you used the MRA acronym in a comment to me a while back did I even know what it was either.
So I went and took a look and while there are some interesting ideas there, there’s also a lot that isn’t attractive at all. Unlike what you seem to think I’m no fan of the MRA scene because they seem locked into a confrontational mode of action that’s a complete dead end.
But now you are unhappy because you feel I willfully misquoted you. Geeze how do you think I feel after the shitstorm of misrepresentation and unmitigated personal abuse I’ve been on the wrong end the past few days? Really … I don’t ask that question rhetorically.
I repeat; “At least that is how I read it; maybe you’d care to clarify?”
Red, you selectively quoted me. I’ve then told you that you’ve mis quoted me. Are you trying to tell me that I don’t know what my own comment meant and intended?
You cannot see the “by far” qualifier – you are blinded to it
Actually, it seems to be you who is blinded by it. Studies show that women and men commit similar amounts of violence and abuse. The violence by men causes far more physical damage than that done by women and so we hear more of it but that doesn’t mean that violence by women doesn’t happen at close to the same rate.
My response to that is for men to start being active around solving the issues of violence against them without trying to undo the work that women have done. It’s actually not that hard an approach. The problem comes when men want to deny the structural issues that exist because of the patriarchal system (or whatever we want to call it) and how that system privileges people differently. I get that men don’t want to be blamed, but that’s a different thing than saying that each gender is just as violent as the other. The dynamics are different and I think the one thing we can assume here is that women see violence as a different thing than what you are suggesting, so there is a power struggle right there. Because women have been working on violence within a system that automaticaly affords them less power, they’re not going to respond well to yet another attempt to disempower them.
It may just be better(more) communication but it seems that violence (from all sources) is increasing.
It is tempting to draw a correlation with the increasing economic inequality that is occuring
Ie is the underlieing driver of all violence is economic violence
(Not saying it is or isnt , just seeing if this model gives useful insight that could help prevent or forwarn of instances of violence)
Draco, there are only a few hundred female prisoners in NZ, at a reasonable guess there are in the region of 20 times as many men in jail. That doesn’t marry up with your similar levels of violence thing.
‘Women are as likely to perpetrate domestic violence as men’. This one came up in the recent BBC documentary about ‘The Rise of Female Violence’, though to its marginal credit, the beeb only claimed this for ‘low level domestic violence’. First of all, we shouldn’t assume that if women perpetrate domestic violence, it’s always against men — some women have relationships with people of other genders too (and we don’t celebrate violence in those relationships either, especially as there is a real dearth of specialist service provision for survivors of domestic violence who are LGBTQ— which are also in fact the services that men experiencing domestic violence are most likely to need [1]). Furthermore, when women do commit ‘low level domestic violence’, it’s usually either self-defence or ‘co-violence’ — women are sole perpetrators in less than 4% of reported incidents [2]. This leads on to the next myth that needs to be debunked.
I find it interesting that men want to argue that women are as violent as men just in a less violent way. Which just comes across as self-serving mansplaining. I’m open the conversation happening in a different way, but given the whole point about power and how it gets given and used I’m not settling for a conversation where men come in and say Labour does it too.
The authors of the American CTS studies stress that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men [Orman, 1998]. Husbands have higher rates of the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence, their violent acts are repeated more often, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and women are financially and socially locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men. In fact, Straus expresses his concern that “the statistics are likely to be misused by misogynists and apologists for male violence” [cited in Orman, 1998].
I’m far less interested in exhanging internet links than I am in having a real conversation about violence. I don’t see this happening and that’s because of how Red framed it at the start.
Yes, which people are convicted does give an insight into who commits violence in this land. We do not have a dirty secret of abuse equivalent to the scale of the Catholic Church but committed by mothers, aunties and sisters in this country. Unless you can show me that we do?
@ maui
The fact there are far more male prisoners than female prisoners is irrelevant. Men tend to commit more physical and sex-related violence and it is reflected in the prison rate. Women on the other hand tend to use other means of violence and intimidation that are harder to prove because they are often carried out in a clandestine manner. And even when some form of direct physical violence is present, it is often the male victim who ends up being treated like the suspect. As a result there is far less reporting of violent acts by women against men.
Anne, that sounds like a story to me. Equally I can tell you a story that women don’t go to the police to report the abuse they and their kids suffer. Now which story sounds more like real life to you? And which is more relevant to exposing domestic violence in NZ. Where are the reformed female abusers who are sharing their story to the public because it needs some sunlight?
Thank-you for insulting me maui. I don’t make up stories. I suggest you read Draco below who has linked to what I am sure is peer removed research.
You have attempted to conflate one issue with another in order to prove a point – whatever precisely it may be. We are talking in general terms about the level of violence perpetrated by men and woman alike. If you are not prepared to accept that men can be equally victims of violence too then that is an indictment on your closed mind. The terrible abuse some women and children have been forced to suffer – often over long periods of time – is not being refuted by anyone here. All some of us are trying to point out is that women can also inflict serious damage to their partners. Indeed they can inflict serious damage on other individuals too which is something I can testify to.
For your information it took me 10 years to recover from what was done to me. I had to start from scratch… rebuild my life… my confidence and self esteem… and the hardest lesson of all was learning to trust people again.
Thanks to all of you who stand up for reason and honesty.
It will prevail eventually
Those locked into their self serving prejudice ….. i hope you can find grace somewhere, in the meanwhile i really hope no one lets you anywhere near any potential domestic conflict. You potentially can cause real harm.
I should let DtB answer for himself, but the answer to your question seems to be embedded in his comment already:
he violence by men causes far more physical damage than that done by women and so we hear more of it
Also even when women do cause serious harm, it’s rarely reported. Many men on the wrong end of it don’t even begin to frame it as abuse. And when we do, it’s often not taken seriously, we run a high risk of being falsely accused as perpetrators and get no serious support.
To repeat, yes men are stronger and cause more damage. Everyone fully expects that at least 70% of the serious damage and harm will be done by men. But I maintain that discrepancy more a consequence of biology than sociology. (Maybe there lies the crux of our disagreement.)
The term ‘patriarchy’ while useful at one time has become another barrier. As many people have already said, in the bigger picture patriarchy harms men almost as much as it does women. It’s more about social hierarchy, gross inequality and unjust exploitation than it is about gender. It forms the basis of the greed based, unconstrained capitalism that oppresses virtually all of humanity in pretty much equal measure.
Again feminism has a LOT of interesting and vital things to say about patriarchy, but decoupling the concept from gender might well lower the barrier to more people accepting it. Maybe we need a new word for it.
Quick synopsis of the clip: Turangi midwife sees 50% of client mothers in domestic violence situations. So taking this into account, from your world view this would mean pregnant women instigating attacks from their partners. Or solely pregnant women being the ones inflicting damage on their male partners. I can’t reconcile that I’m sorry, and I can’t think of anyone I know in real life who would make those assumptions either.
I can’t do the video, but your synopsis doesn’t surprise me. Pregnancy is a time of heightened emotions for both partners, that often catalyses both the best and worst for each of them.
In my experience (and it’s only from a sample of one) pregnancy stimulates some very deep and primitive instincts in the mother. Unless you are prepared for them, or at least are confident enough as a man to deal with them, they can be very confronting. Cause can never stand in for excuse, but it’s exactly the kind of thing I have in mind when I’m taking about the need to understand root causes better.
Men too react in many subtle and unconscious ways to their partner being pregnant; and most of us are completely unprepared for these intense feelings. So it does not surprise me at all that pregnancy is a time of increased risk of violence. Personally I can think of few things sadder than a young pregnant mother beaten and hurt by her partner … and mostly for reasons that are probably quite avoidable.
But of course most women are not pregnant all their lives; which in real life is time enough.
What that video says is that there is something going on in very economically depressed Turangi which the health and law enforcement authorities need to get to the bottom of.
The health authorities are very much aware of the issue, have people who know about the issues on the ground (like midwives) and reformed male abusers and they do campaigns on addressing the issue. A pity there’s a sub section of society who have alternate theories on what the health issue is, a bit like the beliefs of climate deniers I might add.
Research showing that women are often aggressors in domestic violence has been causing controversy for almost 40 years, ever since the 1975 National Family Violence Survey by sociologists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire found that women were just as likely as men to report hitting a spouse and men were just as likely as women to report getting hit. The researchers initially assumed that, at least in cases of mutual violence, the women were defending themselves or retaliating. But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.
I should have been more clear and said similar amounts of domestic violence.
And then there’s this bit:
For the most part, feminists’ reactions to reports of female violence toward men have ranged from dismissal to outright hostility. Straus chronicles a troubling history of attempts to suppress research on the subject, including intimidation of heretical scholars of both sexes and tendentious interpretation of the data to portray women’s violence as defensive. In the early 1990s, when laws mandating arrest in domestic violence resulted in a spike of dual arrests and arrests of women, battered women’s advocates complained that the laws were “backfiring on victims,” claiming that women were being punished for lashing back at their abusers. Several years ago in Maryland, the director and several staffers of a local domestic violence crisis center walked out of a meeting in protest of the showing of a news segment about male victims of family violence. Women who have written about female violence, such as Patricia Pearson, author of the 1997 book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, have often been accused of colluding with an anti-female backlash.
Can I ask for clarification weka? Specifically on this bit “…the idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue”
Are you claiming that if one was to say that domestic violence is a human violence issue, that just by saying that, political analysis of systemic oppression is ‘rubbished’? Or are you meaning to say that it can and sometimes is used in that way?
I think that MRA-like arguments I have read say that it’s not a gender issue/ it’s a human issue as part and parcel of trying to negate the idea that the patriarchal system is a real thing that affects men and women differently (they also seem to be doing the same kind of strawman thing there by saying that feminism claims that the analyses of the patriarchy mean that women think men are all to blame, at which point its very hard not to start rolling ones eyes).
So yes, if someone wants to discuss domestic violence within the context of how humans are violent in general, that’s not a problem. But if they want to mistate feminist theory and then try and use that to support their position and undermine feminism, I say fuck off. Or if they want to misuse research, statistics and analyses of social dymanics, same thing.
gsays and weka – I’ve been enjoying (not sure that’s the right word – stimulated maybe – perhaps “reminded” and “activated” might be more correct ) by the Broken and Men Dominate discussions ), and I appreciated Red Logix’s comments – even if they were being offered in a context which might not have been appropriate.
We all have our different life experiences – some are more painful than others – and what I have learned thru those, is that you can never tell what someone else has been through, even if they’re looking and sounding okay. So – along with an understanding that not everyone can express themselves as well as they’d like, then maybe a degree of tolerance is required.
This sounds ideal, but is very difficult to put into practice. And somehow its easier to be dismissive of people on The Standard and other blogs, and on Facebook, rather than face-to-face in real life. I’m not very good at it, either.
Shit – I hope this doesn’t sound patronising . From an older age point-of-view. Not meant to be.
Just saying – these have been stimulating discussions, and they’ve brought up a lot of memories – good and bad.
And I wanted to comment on the anonymity thing as well – I started out on The Standard being anonymous. But – I’m now old enough (getting towards ancient), not sure if I’m tough enough – but decided it didn’t matter any more – so became the real me.
But I’m sure the real me is a lot nicer in writing, than the REAL me is !
hi jenny, i have been extremely fortunate not to have been a victim of violence.
i also have been close to some folk who have been in extremely unhealthy relationships, ranging from the psychological ‘water on a rock’ type abuse through to the serious hospitalizing because of assault.
it is hard to act, to act appropriately and effectively without isolating the victim further from support.
especially with the smaller incidents, the precurser events.
re pseudonyms, i picked this tag when i started commenting as, to my eyes, back then most folk on ts had them.
i find if someone is a dick or trolling, i just ignore them.
also want to add, i like the more vigorous moderating. stopping distracters and trolls.
i like dissenting opinions as it makes me look closer at what i believe, but some of these folks are more diversionary.
Hi Jenny, I also found the discussions stimulating and I’m heartened by the fact that they were more civil than usual.
I suppose I’m still wondering if some people don’t fully get what the objection to Red’s post was. Yes it was the context. But it’s also the politics. It’s brave of him to tell his personal story. I have no problem with anyone doing that and I know that most feminists not only support survivors of all genders using their experiences to talk about their politics, but that most feminists have men in their lives and so value men as a class.
What I have a problem with is Red’s politics around gender and violence, and his subsequent arguments that are essentially anti-feminist and underming of the politics of oppression that explains so much of women’s experiences. I have had quite a few conversations with him now over the years about this and I no longer have any tolerance for what he does. He is able to explain himself reasonably well so I don’t think this is an issue of him not being understood. I think it’s an issue of many people rejecting his basic premises (eg the biology arguments, tha idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, his very poor understanding of what feminism is and does). Those basic premises get criticised and then he tries to defend them, and in amongst all that his story gets mixed up. But the story of what happened to him isn’t the problem, it’s how he is using that to inform his politics that is.
I will always support people to be able to talk about their experiences. But you are right, I have zero tolerance for people then using those to underpin some pretty abhorrent politics esp where those politics actively harm others. I’m not dismissive of Red (him and I have talked all sort of politics over the years), but I am now pretty dismissive of his gender politics. Much of that is due to the fact that it is such a waste of time and a huge distraction to have to argue about things that are fundamentall agin to progressive politics. We have urgent gender issues to work on, many of us have been working on them for a very long time, and the kinds of ideas that Red is pushing are part of a bigger agenda to undermine women and many of the gains made in recent decades.
” But the story of what happened to him isn’t the problem, it’s how he is using that to inform his politics that is.”
Thanks Weka for the clarification re Red L and his gender politics – I hadn’t registered his previous comments on those issues – maybe I just misssed them because of other interesting discussions going on elsewhere.
I don’t think we’ve had any of those big gender discussions for a quite a while. In the past they’ve been ugly, so it was good to see this one relatively straight forward.
” Much of that is due to the fact that it is such a waste of time and a huge distraction to have to argue about things that are fundamentall agin to progressive politics. ”
This neatly sums up why “progressive politics” is stalled, meanwhile we all career to distruction.
The inevitable outcome of the use of factionalisation as a campaigning tool is that you create a pool of voters that vote against you.
When you entwine that with environmental and fairness issues you do real harm.
Its sad
Ok i am settling on naive
If you are unaware of the factionalisation of the “progressive parties” and the inevitable result large scale voter turn off then i dont see how i am going to convince you.
really? .. you really dont get this?
Positive discrimination is an oxymoron, discrimination is wrong whatever the cause
I know it, you know it, and a majority of voters know it
So i guess you will tell me it isn’t happening? But if it looks like a duck , quacks like a duck, and craps everywhere , most people will see a duck.
That is not in any way to detract from the realities of the many and increasing inequalities we live with. just to make the point that a just cause dosn’t make wrong right and you do more harm than good if you act like it does!
“If you are unaware of the factionalisation of the “progressive parties” and the inevitable result large scale voter turn off then i dont see how i am going to convince you.”
I’m simply asking you to explain what YOU mean by those things, so there can be clear communication. I could guess what you mean, but honestly, if you can’t be bothered with communicating well I don’t see why I should either.
I don’t understand your comments either, Xanthe, re factionalisation of left parties. Can you clarify what you mean by this word – factionalisation please, and how does it occur ?
Perhaps an example would help.
Hi jenny
the purpose of governance is to find the best solutions for all, the purpose of elections or appointments either in government or within political parties is to appoint those who will best serve all.
Factionalisation occurs when candidates present as representing the interest of some demographic (gender, race, age, religion, idiology, whatever) and those demographs vote for the candidate that will best further the interest of that demograph.
It seems harmless enought but it is actually an unethical abuse of the democratic process, a bit around the edges does little harm, when it becomes the dominant feature of party or government the purpose of government and democracy is lost
that is quite significantly were the “progressive parties” are at
anti-feminist and underming of the politics of oppression that explains so much of women’s experiences.
I agree that my view does not line up with the usual feminist conventions. Although to be quite plain, feminism itself seems to have so many interpretations it’s not simple to conform to one linear narrative anymore.
Having said that, I’ll paraphrase what I’ve said before, that feminism has played a vital role in identifying and making visible the issue of dv. In that sense I’m hardly ‘anti-feminist’ … or whatever that is supposed to mean.
Really my view boils down to this. By placing most of it’s focus on the visible story of male violence on women and children the standard feminist narrative has become a hindrance to progress. I point to the flat-lining statistics that seem to be as bad as ever they were. We aren’t making progress and I think we need to look closer at the reasons why.
It is plain as day that the so called ‘gender wars’ have factionalised men and women against each other. That isn’t my doing, it’s just obvious after a few passes around the net. I think that is a hindrance. We will only solve this problem if men and women trust each other and help each other through this.
My approach is to treat the underlying root causes of intimate partner violence as a gender neutral, human problem that is aimed at understanding the drivers of behaviour and avoids blame.
And I think I can mostly say I’ve never been openly dismissive of your views weka. Not like you are now.
“In that sense I’m hardly ‘anti-feminist’ … or whatever that is supposed to mean.”
That’s right, you don’t know what I, as a feminist, mean. And until you are willing to take the time to learn that, I’m not longer willing to debate content with you on this topic.
“And I think I can mostly say I’ve never been openly dismissive of your views weka. Not like you are now.”
Maybe, but my memory over multiple conversations is that you routinely avoided dealing directly with the arguments pointing out the problems in what you are presenting. So it’s not as overt, but your dismissal is still there. And it’s horrible to debate with. I’ve reach my limit, so I’m making my dismissal overt.
As I’ve said, I have very good reasons for not engaging in debating the content of your post or comments. I’m not the only one that feels like it’s a waste of time and/or a big distraction.
Weka, I agree that RL did politicise his post and use some unfortunate stereotypes, but the thing that did strike me about the whole thread was the fact that males in abusive relationships are just told to get out of the relationship, that is your only option. Imagine if that is the only advice we gave females in abusive relationships, it’s simply not that easy.
There is no refuge available for men, retaliation is not and should never be an option and to my knowledge there are no support groups available to abused men. In fact, NZ’s Domestic Violence support groups openly exclude and even blame men:
“Every year, Shine directly helps thousands of adult and child victims of domestic abuse to be safer, and we motivate hundreds of men that hurt their families to change their behaviour” http://www.2shine.org.nz/how-shine-helps/shine-services
“Women’s Refuge is a key national organisation working to end domestic violence towards women and children” https://womensrefuge.org.nz/
Ad offered a useful statistic in the first comment of RL’s post:
“In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women: http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/”
Without trying to politicise the issue further, how do you see a way forward if we are not willing to look at the issue in a gender neutral way? Do we just accept that a quarter of intimate partner violence-related deaths are caused by men not getting out of the relationship in time?
This has ended up being a lot more confrontational than I originally set out to be. Please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, or as trying to diminish the work that AreYouOk and Womens Refuge do. I am simply trying to point out that while RL may have made some unfortunate statements in his post, his story equally needed to be told and the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed.
Just to clarify a little further Bob. When I mention the topic of female on male abuse (which only some of which is physical) … I’m absolutely not trying to make any kind of Labour did it too argument. One form of abuse in no sense diminishes any other.
And it was my experience that the underlying causes of dv are shared by both genders, and this shapes my approach to the topic.
“Weka, I agree that RL did politicise his post and use some unfortunate stereotypes, but the thing that did strike me about the whole thread was the fact that males in abusive relationships are just told to get out of the relationship, that is your only option. Imagine if that is the only advice we gave females in abusive relationships, it’s simply not that easy.”
Women do still get told that. In the past they got told that a lot. The reason they have more options today is because they organised.
There is no refuge available for men, retaliation is not and should never be an option and to my knowledge there are no support groups available to abused men.
The reason why women have services is because they organised. We didn’t get them handed to us on a plate. We got together under pretty difficult circumstances and created those services ourselves until others like the govt were willing to step in and help too. We are still hugely underfunded relative to many other aspects of NZ society, including ones that men not only benefit from but control the funding for.
In fact, NZ’s Domestic Violence support groups openly exclude and even blame men:
“Every year, Shine directly helps thousands of adult and child victims of domestic abuse to be safer, and we motivate hundreds of men that hurt their families to change their behaviour”
Yes, men need to be held accountable for when they hurt other people. What does that have to do with men who are victims?
Ad offered a useful statistic in the first comment of RL’s post:
“In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women: http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/”
I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.
Without trying to politicise the issue further, how do you see a way forward if we are not willing to look at the issue in a gender neutral way?
We’re already making progress. This is one of Red’s basic premises that I reject (that we haven’t achieved anything useful).
Do we just accept that a quarter of intimate partner violence-related deaths are caused by men not getting out of the relationship in time?
ok, now I’m confused. Are you talking about men who abuse, or men who are being abused, or men who are both? Or what? It would help if you were clearer. I get that the situations are complex, and we need to take time to communicate clearly what we mean.
This has ended up being a lot more confrontational than I originally set out to be. Please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, or as trying to diminish the work that AreYouOk and Womens Refuge do. I am simply trying to point out that while RL may have made some unfortunate statements in his post, his story equally needed to be told and the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed.
I actually don’t care what Red wrote in his post, because I’ve seen it all before. It’s not just that he makes unfortunately statements, it’s that his politics are based on premises that many progressive people reject, and he is aligning himself with groups that are actively harming feminism, women and society.
And let’s be clear here. He also is promoting a false dichotomy between the existing situation as he perceives it ie that seeing domestic violence as gendered is harming men and inhibiting change, and the idea that we can only do wright by men by abandoning that. It comes across as feminism is wrong about this and we need to look at men’s needs by underming what they are doing. It’s just bullshit. And it’s a serious problem here on the left because I don’t see any feminists supporting what he says (so if you want to ask where we would go, trying figuring out how to move somewhere after you have just said that feminism is wrong).
Here’s what I would respect,
Domestic violence overwhemingly affects women and is perpetrated by men, so we need to look at how women can be protected and men can be expected to change.
In addition to that, there are men who are being harmed by women, and we need to look at why that is happening, and protect them and get those women to change too.
In addition to that, humans don’t fit neatly into binary gender or heterosexuality, so we need to pay attention to those cultures and what their needs are around violence.
All of the above is an inclusive model. Feminism will support men organising to address violence against them. They won’t support that if it’s being done by underming feminism.
(aside, because this apparently needs spelling out, “Feminism will…” is me shorthanding and generalising as a way of not writing a novel. Like every other progressive movement, there are many expressions of feminism and many ways that feminists are active and see themselves. That’s not a problem).
Edit, I’ll also say that there is no taboo from me on talking about domestic violence against men, nor from most feminists I know. There is appropriate time and place, but in general, most feminism wants men to be well too. I would welcome posts and discussion about this topic on ts. I won’t tolerate that being done in a regressive and repressive MRA-like way. There are other, constructive ways to approach this. Red isn’t the one to do it.
It’s important to look further behind the statistics quoted above (e.g. 24% of intimate partner violence-related (IPV) deaths were perpetrated by women against men), which tend to underestimate the magnitude and effect of domestic violence perpetrated against women.
From the report provided on the areyouok website, when examining the deaths according to domestic violence history within the relationship, 93% of all the IPV deaths involved female primary victims, and 96% involved male predominant aggressors (page 41 of the report).
Of the deaths perpetrated by women, 83% were classified “Female primary victim/suspected primary victim kills male predominant aggressor”, and 17% as “Female predominant aggressor kills male/female primary victim”.
So, in most cases women perpetrating IPV deaths were primary victims themselves.
Also, just want to say thank you to Weka for your insightful and considerate comments regarding IPV and all gender-related subjects! This is a hard area to read as a lurker, let alone comment on, but so important, so I really appreciate that you continue to fight the fight.
I’m hugely appreciative of what you’ve just posted re the report.
And thanks for the thanks and the reminder of what this is like to be reading. This is why I don’t want to respond to Reds content, it just keeps a politically damaging conversation going. Walking away now.
I also appreciate the effort Weka has put into her comments, patiently trying to educate and explain in the face of some incredible levels of ignorance and misogyny.
I expect it from the right but find it very hard to accept it from the left. Unfortunately my idea of left seemingly does not match many of those commenting on the Standard who claim to be left but still have racist and sexist attitudes that they are not willing to confront.
That’s the weka who says that RL’s judgement on this issue is untrustworthy and that the facts that RL provides aren’t worth following up because they’re probably dodgy?
I suppose RL could be a greater man and not take that shit personally. But it sounds pretty damn personal.
That’s not quite what I said though CV, so there is another example of misrepresenting my position. Here’s what I actually said,
I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.
I have given analysis over time of why I won’t engage with Red’s content on this topic. That included me saying that I don’t trust his sources because of my experience of arguing with him about this in the past. Other’s a free to follow up his links and make their own decisions.
You don’t like my critique of his politics, fair enough. But I haven’t been abusive. In fact I would day that this whole round of gender politics on ts has been remarkably free from abuse.
There is nothing wrong with me or anyone critiquing Red’s position. We do that on ts every day, why not in this situation?
Every study done in this area has been controversial. And when you drill into the details what you find is that there are essentially three kinds of interaction:
1. One partner inflicts one way abuse on the other
2. One partner initiates, the other responds in self-defence
3. Both parties pretty much go at it hammer and tongs equally
This complicates how we view the situation a lot. When you add in verbal abuse and humiliation it gets even more complex.
which tend to underestimate the magnitude and effect of domestic violence perpetrated against women.
Again no-one wants to minimise the fact that male violence causes more harm. I’ll keep saying this over and over because pixels are free and I can type fast. Your point is redundant, I’ve already emphatically stated it many, many times and yet no-one seems capable of noticing this.
So, in most cases women perpetrating IPV deaths were primary victims themselves.
Yet interestingly when men perpetrate IPV deaths absolutely no defense of provocation or any justification is ever permitted.
But certainly where deaths are concerned, men are the by far the dominant perpetrators, no argument … yet crucially it is not 100%. Women too murder their partners. Same-sex partner violence is also thought to be rising.
This is proof that violence is not totally determined by the fact of gender alone. Abuse occurs on a spectrum, and while males unquestionably dominate the worst end of it, there is no evidence to suggest that women are exempt from their share of it either.
Therefore there must be an underlying root cause that is common to all human experience.
And that just proves – nothing. In fact, it’s moving the goal post from domestic violence to deaths caused by domestic violence. Different category, different measure.
Ummmm, if someone moved the goal posts ’twasnt me – I used the same evidence from the report quoted by Bob, so not sure where this critique comes from.
What I think it illustrates is that you need to have a more indepth knowledge of the figure you are quoting, otherwise you can do more harm than good.
I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.
You’ve got a smart guy, RL, who has personal experience with DV as a victim, and who is willing to engage with you and with other commentators on TS in an articulate way.
But you know what, fuck that, he’s clearly not trustworthy on this issue because he says things which confront the mental model you’ve built up around DV, and because you believe that your own basic premise is solid enough that you can dismiss him as you already have the answers that you want.
So his entire input and life experience gets *POOOF* invalidated in a single moment – and my input too even though I personally know how violent Kiwi women can be.
Instead, you’ll just create your own definition and own paradigm of what DV affecting males is all about, and the rest of us simply get to buy into it or not.
Well, good luck with that, because both RL and I know that while you, and some of the other women who are commenting on this issue have some of the most important answers and insights, you still only own a fraction of what is required.
All of the above is an inclusive model. Feminism will support men organising to address violence against them. They won’t support that if it’s being done by underming feminism…There is appropriate time and place, but in general, most feminism wants men to be well too. I would welcome posts and discussion about this topic on ts.
The concept that men need or want the support of feminists or feminism in order to change themselves for the better, or that feminists or feminism has any validity in determining or defining what is good for men, or that feminists or feminism can describe what men are lacking and then act to help change the well being of men, is utterly unacceptable.
It is as ridiculous and outrageous as suggesting that women need the support, approval and contribution of men in order to change and improve who they are.
The concept that men need or want the support of feminists or feminism in order to change themselves for the better, or that feminists or feminism has any validity in determining or defining what is good for men, or that feminists or feminism can describe what men are lacking and then act to help change the well being of men, is utterly unacceptable.
Poppycock. This the third time of writing? How can you be a man in this world and not be a feminist?
Also. No-one has berated or challenged reds account of his experience of DV. What is challenged is the deficiency of understanding he exhibits with reference to the underlying drivers of DV. I mean, fuck, he takes the most valuable frame of reference – patriarchy – and just flat out dismisses it. Having dismissed that whole analytical framework out of hand, he then turns to studies and figures, a lot of which are twisted (and discredited) stats produced by overtly misogynistic fucktards to back his assertion that females and males are on some kind of level playing field when it comes to violence. We ain’t!
And that, just in case your entertaining the idea, isn’t me hating on men or projecting any type of self loathing. But I do despise that set of social norms that have grown up and that can be said to reside with the concept of patriarchy. And I despise the way that culture impacts on men and women both directly and indirectly or via intermediaries.
I don’t pretend to know the numbers on this. But I’d be curious to know how many women who abuse their partners were themselves previously subjected to abuse. Because misdirected revenge that springs from events in previous relationships or situations is cause for using the framework of patriarchy to understand why some women are abusing their partners…it’s not a reason to throw the framework away on the grounds that it doesn’t seem to apply to the here and now of a given abusive situation.
mean, fuck, he takes the most valuable frame of reference – patriarchy – and just flat out dismisses it. Having dismissed that whole analytical framework out of hand,
Really?
Well if its such a valuable and powerful frame of reference, then let’s see the highly insightful and effective paths forward that this awesome analytical framework gives our towns and neighbourhoods about DV.
At least with a Marxian analytical framework, the workers are shown real ways out that they can do for themselves.
Its a long thread Bill you may have missed when I said this above at 4:11pm
The term ‘patriarchy’ while useful at one time has become another barrier. As many people have already said, in the bigger picture patriarchy harms men almost as much as it does women. It’s more about social hierarchy, gross inequality and unjust exploitation than it is about gender. It forms the basis of the greed based, unconstrained capitalism that oppresses virtually all of humanity in pretty much equal measure.
Again as I said, feminism has had a LOT of vital and interesting things to say about patriarchy. Really.
But when you read someone like Jared Diamond who neatly traces the origin of it back to the invention of agriculture, the need to defend territory, the need for disposable males as soldiers, the need to control female breeding to have plenty of replacements, the resulting intensification of hierarchy and inequality, economic models based on slavery and exploitation … it all looks more and more like class war than gender war.
Now of course historically feminism has a proud heritage of righting legal and structural inequality that was an inherent part of the slave/serf economies. But in a society where all women can vote, go to work in any job of their choosing, enter any relationship they want, and leave it at their choosing, enter into any legal contract, start any business they want, travel and live pretty much as they wish …. the idea this is a brutal repressive and literal patriarchy doesn’t quite live up to the label any more.
What instead feminism now confronts is male behaviour. And is now unhappy that men have all gotten with the program. What many men feel, but struggle to articulate is a sense that “what you are calling ‘patriarchy’ smells pretty much like the shit I have to put up with everyday myself”. As I said before; patriarchy harms most men almost as much as most women.
Now crucially this does NOT dismiss the experience of patriarchy as women experience it. But it does suggest a better way to reframe it so as both genders get it.
Jared Diamond – I’ve read some of his stuff – is in the same boat as any other person looking to the past and trying to figure it out. They are stuck within current frameworks of reference and so, in the end, can only tell stories. Now, some of those stories might seem more plausible than others, but all of them are chock full of projections from the here and now into an unknown and largely unknowable past.
Red, if you’re looking to pit an economic understanding against a gender understanding, then seriously, go and read this excellent post from a wee while back by ‘stargazer’.
he then turns to studies and figures, a lot of which are twisted (and discredited) stats produced by overtly misogynistic fucktards to back his assertion that females and males are on some kind of level playing field when it comes to violence.
What a load of fucken bollocks.
When study after study shows the same thing then you pretty have to take it as a given. And, no, those studies have not been discredited.
Hi Bill – your comments above make a lot of sense. Pity the guys who are reading them cannot take them on board.
Patriachy does seem to me to be a valid framework to use in this discussion.
It is as ridiculous and outrageous as suggesting that women need the support, approval and contribution of men in order to change and improve who they are.
Yes. When the feminists demanded the right to define what was important to them, to frame gender issues entirely on their terms, they forgot that men might equally demand the same right as well.
Of course their response was ‘well you are all the bad guys so you don’t get that right’. And we said ‘well actually we AREN’T all the bad guys’
And the women reply “we never said that, we just want to hold all men accountable as a class for the actions of a few’. And so it goes.
Then the MRA types said ‘fuck you, we’re going to determine our own narrative anyway’. The women screamed ‘misogynists!’ and on it goes.
Oh well … I’ll finish here by repeating something I said above; that in the end the path through this shitstorm will only be found when both genders start trusting each other again. And then helping each other to be be the best we can.
I’ll put it this way. We all know that men cause more harm. It’s largely a fact of our greater strength and crap socialisation in an intrinsically violent society.
But tell a man that his greater strength is a gift, tell him it is his duty to use if safely, tell him it makes him a better man to be responsible for using this gift wisely … then you have a framework most men will respond to.
And then ask yourself, who is that most men will listen to most, that they will do almost anything to please, if not the women in their lives they mostly want nothing more than to love and cherish?
Yes. When the feminists demanded the right to define what was important to them, to frame gender issues entirely on their terms, they forgot that men might equally demand the same right as well.
Red. What’s with this ‘the feminists’? Do you really think that feminist thought and understanding is the exclusive preserve of women? I mean, my experience of patriarchy is substantially different to that of women, but it’s not separate.
Of course their response was ‘well you are all the bad guys so you don’t get that right’. And we said ‘well actually we AREN’T all the bad guys’
I only ever met one woman who called herself for being a feminist who hated men…I was the only man in a room of about a dozen feminists at the time. And you know what? The feminists in the room didn’t want a bar of it. (That was in a house the evening before a day of feminist workshops many years back in England…mostly anarcho feminists from memory, pretty light on the liberal feminist front and I only wound up being in that house by accident).
And the women reply “we never said that, we just want to hold all men accountable as a class for the actions of a few’. And so it goes.
I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others (with the one isolated exception I’ve mentioned above)
Then the MRA types said ‘fuck you, we’re going to determine our own narrative anyway’. The women screamed ‘misogynists!’ and on it goes.
So the MRA types basically justify their shit off the back of their pre-existing prejudice.
Oh well … I’ll finish here by repeating something I said above; that in the end the path through this shitstorm will only be found when both genders start trusting each other again. And then helping each other to be be the best we can.
Again. I’ve never (with that one exception) found distrust – in relation to what we’re discussing – to be any kind of an issue.
I’ll put it this way. We all know that men cause more harm. It’s largely a fact of our greater strength and crap socialisation in an intrinsically violent society.
If society is intrinsically violent then it follows that no configuration of humanity can be anything but violent – and that’s simply not true. there are reasons why this society is violent. But you’re apparently loathe to analyse it.
But tell a man that his greater strength is a gift, tell him it is his duty to use if safely, tell him it makes him a better man to be responsible for using this gift wisely … then you have a framework most men will respond to.
Hail the almighty? Really??
And then ask yourself, who is that most men will listen to most, that they will do almost anything to please, if not the women in their lives they mostly want nothing more than to love and cherish?
And they all lived happily ever after in a patriarchal wonderland. Fan-fucking-tastic.
I already read Weka’s comment earlier. You might have noted I asked her to clarify one small part – which she did. She was giving a rundown of MRA stuff….not a run down of men’s attitudes. Is that where you went off track?
Well, what kind of response do you expect to an appeal for supposed superiority be acknowledged, accepted as truth and encouraged/rewarded? I wasn’t sneering at you. I was being contemptuous of the idea you were peddling. Look. If you happen to have a partner who is consensually submissive in aspects of your relationship, then all power to you both. But you can’t put that expectation or that template ‘out there’ as though it should be a norm and not expect some ‘less than enthusiastic’ responses.
“I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others”
Try reading weka up above.
here’s what I said,
It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.
That means that men as a class are accountable for the privilges that their class is afforded. In the context of this conversation it also means that men as a class need to step up and change male violence, not because all individual men are responsible for the actions of other individual men, but because men are the ones that can change their own culture as a whole.
Nothing, I repeat nothing, in what I have said suggests that Bill is responsible for another general man’s violence. IMO he does have a responsibility to take action against male violence in general, and I see him doing that in this thread.
Likewise I will hold Pākehā as a class accountable for racism in NZ. Or the non-disabled accountable for the shit that disabled people have to go through just to live their lives. Not because non-disabled people are bad, but because they have power that disabled people don’t.
So, yet another example of your failure to even understand the basic arguments made by feminism, and to misrepresent my views. On and on it goes. Your views on feminism are so twisted from what feminists believe and you continue to assert that your views of feminism are more valid than those of feminists. It makes sense then that you insist that I don’t know what I mean elsewhere in the thread. There’s no way past that.
IMO he does have a responsibility to take action against male violence in general, and I see him doing that in this thread.
I’ve absolutely zero problem or argument when you frame it like that.
But still nothing said about women taking responsibility against female violence in general. Yes it’s less physically damaging and way less visible, but it emotionally it’s every bit as harmful.
Feminists have spent a lot of energy and got a LOT of oxygen demanding men take responsibility to change; yet the slightest hint from men that maybe women might want to examine their own camp too, gets viciously shouted down.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s patronising and condescending. All you do is tell me how ignorant and twisted I am, making the issue personal rather than adding to the conversation. You barely manage to omit the word misogynist. It’s typical of the bile feminist direct towards men and it’s taking you nowhere.
@Bill
Look. If you happen to have a partner who is consensually submissive in aspects of your relationship, then all power to you both.
Again the grotesque misrepresentation. It’s truly amazing what people will project. Actually my partner is a successful and capable business person in her own right and is naturally assertive and bossy when it suits her. She’s much better at organising people than I am, and has fine strong opinions of her own. It is why I love her.
But while you sneer, the fact remains, regardless of any imaginary templates you want to make up, almost no-one enters into an intimate relationship with a picture in their mind of hitting, kicking, beating or killing this person they love. No-one (apart from maybe the psychopaths) walk down the traditional marriage aisle in the hope that one day they can get to kick the shit out the person they are about to be joined with.
So when it does all end up in hospital, refuge or court surely it is worth asking ‘what went so badly wrong?’
In all this debate it is so easy to lose sight of this truth, that most people, most of the time are fundamentally good. And when they are not … it is more often the stuff of tragedy than malice.
That’s it from me. I’m sick of seeing my name on the sidebar for the time being and I’ve other things to get on with.
“the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed”.
Yes – I would agree Bill, but isn’t it time that men took up that issue for themselves – just as women in the past have taken up the issue of domestic violence and worked to bring it out into the open, and to provide safe shelters for those women and children it affects.
Edit – I see that Weka above answers this in more detail.
Hi all, I would like to suggest that part of the tension in this discussion is that we have a head and a heart debating and in that, it can be hard to see common ground
I applaud your approach gsays and several decades ago i would have said the same.
In my experience those who set themselves up as saviours of the victim’s often gain a sense of personal entltlement and feel justified in using unethical means to get what they are convinced is owing to them, This manefests in dishonest and manipulative communication as was the case here. It is a form of violence and does create tension. In a domestic setting it is domestic violence. They themselves are convinced that because they are doing it for the victims is must be OK
Quite frankly I dont know how to get through to them. The only times i have observed a meaningful change from this behaviour is if they are by circumstance required to accept responsibility for some harm they have caused, but generally it can be blamed on the oppressors so it dosnt happen often. Thus are despots made from the best of intentions.
Oh wow so good, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11637631 Raybon Kan “Meanwhile, in another romantic comedy, Fairfax and NZME seem to be dating. So one media firm was eyeing up another, yet the media were caught by surprise. What do we expect? The media were in a lock-up watching The Bachelor.”
It therefore seems important to renew the discussion of what we want: to think through not just what we are against, but what we are fighting for (and hence who ‘we’ are), and to consider what might be plausibly achieved in present circumstances.
I just read your recently suggested link about “commonism”. A very good read but I terribly missed one hugely important aspect or dimension, which seems to be left out of most socio-political discourse. Possibly the very last sentence hides a suggestion of a hint …
Incognito
Right I will have another look at that commonism piece and see what the dots you leave behind you refer to.
As to the quote above, yes to thinking about what we are fighting for (and it is a fight, not a skirmish against the powerful-money-materialism-crazed and their naive bunnies in the headlights, and is likely to be a fight to the death – of people elsewhere, or closer – our vulnerable towns and supply systems, our extended families, us, our known planet – which will become the place of the ants which I think have the life systems to survive in places).
But thinking who ‘we’ are. There isn’t time to think, argue and analyse that in depth. The ‘we’ have to be the people who will step forward and do something of value in building capacity, sustainable, friendly community and retaining as much kindness as possible, despite ever harsher conditions. Those who self-select to act, must seek out other people who can combine thinking, reflecting, comradeship and action and together work for worthy practical positive outcomes. The others are just, literally, time-wasters. In The Day of the Triffids, those who wake in the morning after the night-sky show, are blind and shocked and feel their way along the walls to the downstairs lobby hoping for help and guidance, and mill round in circles there.
That is what is happening here in the world right now, we can see but we can’t process intellectually what we see and so won’t take any steps to defray the disaster to come. What a future. Dire. And we are aboard the Titanic. Some survived from that – and one of them was in the company that built it. But it wasn’t his fault was it? The problem was over-confidence, hubris on everyones part, especially captain and crew. A very human failing. Perhaps that is why the human race is failing.
I will certainly have to re-read it again as it was rather long & dense at such a late time at night.
I think you’re probably right about everything you wrote although I personally dislike using ‘military’ terminology. I prefer to see it as (part of) “the human struggle” (Darwinian) to figure out who we are, what is the purpose (meaning) of life, and all those other pesky little questions that won’t go away 😉
The only thing I’d argue about is the tension between acting (now) and thinking (later). IMO we’re destined to do (repeat) the same things (mistakes, or, in your words “mill round in circles”) if we rely on short-term or so-called fast thinking (à la Kahneman). The human condition requires holistic approaches, which also means that actingthinking have to be(come) complementary rather than separate steps in the process.
Popper made a similar argument, I believe, when he discussed (piecemeal) social engineering and planning & politics: small steps with feedback loops along the way and continuous adjustment. That said, I’m not sure that his methodology/philosophy is applicable to major social crises. He contrasted this with Utopian engineering, which he was less keen on, to say the least … Perhaps that’s more like the urgent action that you’re referring to?
Do we need good or better leaders, self-selecting activists and/or thinkers, or do we try something completely different and new?
From a liberal framework it dangerous to say that because men commit more severe family violence that we should have rules or campaigns that single them out. Because if you can do that how do you deal with the significant differences in statistics between cultural groups and socioeconomic levels?
And from a pragmatic framework we currently have a situation where male – female violence is basically unacceptable (most people will actively intervene, which is good) and female to male violence is largely acceptable (at least slaps and some punches – almost no one would intervene). This means a little effort to discourage F-M assaults could have a large effect while M-F assaults are the sort of thing that considerable social pressure has not been able to weed out.
And of course those that see violence are likely to be more violent so reducing this has other benefits.
A listing of 25 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, December 15, 2024 thru Sat, December 21, 2024. Based on feedback we received, this week's roundup is the first one published soleley by category. We are still interested in ...
Well, I've been there, sitting in that same chairWhispering that same prayer half a million timesIt's a lie, though buried in disciplesOne page of the Bible isn't worth a lifeThere's nothing wrong with youIt's true, it's trueThere's something wrong with the villageWith the villageSomething wrong with the villageSongwriters: Andrew Jackson ...
ACT would like to dictate what universities can and can’t say. We knew it was coming. It was outlined in the coalition agreement and has become part of Seymour’s strategy of “emphasising public funding” to prevent people from opposing him and his views—something he also uses to try and de-platform ...
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park from the Gigafact team in collaboration with members from our team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Are we heading ...
So the Solstice has arrived – Summer in this part of the world, Winter for the Northern Hemisphere. And with it, the publication my new Norse dark-fantasy piece, As Our Power Lessens at Eternal Haunted Summer: https://eternalhauntedsummer.com/issues/winter-solstice-2024/as-our-power-lessens/ As previously noted, this one is very ‘wyrd’, and Northern Theory of Courage. ...
The Natural Choice: As a starter for ten percent of the Party Vote, “saving the planet” is a very respectable objective. Young voters, in particular, raised on the dire (if unheeded) warnings of climate scientists, and the irrefutable evidence of devastating weather events linked to global warming, vote Green. After ...
The Government cancelled 60% of Kāinga Ora’s new builds next year, even though the land for them was already bought, the consents were consented and there are builders unemployed all over the place. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political ...
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on UnsplashEvery morning I get up at 3am to go around the traps of news sites in Aotearoa and globally. I pick out the top ones from my point of view and have been putting them into my Dawn Chorus email, which goes out with a podcast. ...
Over on Kikorangi Newsroom's Marc Daalder has published his annual OIA stats. So I thought I'd do mine: 82 OIA requests sent in 2024 7 posts based on those requests 20 average working days to receive a response Ministry of Justice was my most-requested entity, ...
Welcome to the December 2024 Economic Bulletin. We have two monthly features in this edition. In the first, we discuss what the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update from Treasury and the Budget Policy Statement from the Minister of Finance tell us about the fiscal position and what to ...
The NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi have submitted against the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, slamming the Bill as a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and an attack on tino rangatiratanga and the collective rights of Tangata Whenua. “This Bill seeks to legislate for Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles that are ...
I don't knowHow to say what's got to be saidI don't know if it's black or whiteThere's others see it redI don't get the answers rightI'll leave that to youIs this love out of fashionOr is it the time of yearAre these words distraction?To the words you want to hearSongwriters: ...
Our economy has experienced its worst recession since 1991. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, December 20 in The Kākā’s Dawn Chorus podcast above and the daily Pick ‘n’ Mix below ...
Twas the Friday before Christmas and all through the week we’ve been collecting stories for our final roundup of the year. As we start to wind down for the year we hope you all have a safe and happy Christmas and new year. If you’re travelling please be safe on ...
The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the year’s news with: on climate. Her book of the year was Tim Winton’s cli-fi novel Juice and she also mentioned Mike Joy’s memoir The Fight for Fresh Water. ...
The Government can head off to the holidays, entitled to assure itself that it has done more or less what it said it would do. The campaign last year promised to “get New Zealand back on track.” When you look at the basic promises—to trim back Government expenditure, toughen up ...
Open access notables An intensification of surface Earth’s energy imbalance since the late 20th century, Li et al., Communications Earth & Environment:Tracking the energy balance of the Earth system is a key method for studying the contribution of human activities to climate change. However, accurately estimating the surface energy balance ...
Photo by Mauricio Fanfa on UnsplashKia oraCome and join us for our weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar with paying subscribers to The Kākā for an hour at 5 pm today.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream for our chat about the week’s news with myself , plus regular guests and , ...
“Like you said, I’m an unreconstructed socialist. Everybody deserves to get something for Christmas.”“ONE OF THOSE had better be for me!” Hannah grinned, fascinated, as Laurie made his way, gingerly, to the bar, his arms full of gift-wrapped packages.“Of course!”, beamed Laurie. Depositing his armful on the bar-top and selecting ...
Data released by Statistics New Zealand today showed a significant slowdown in the economy over the past six months, with GDP falling by 1% in September, and 1.1% in June said CTU Economist Craig Renney. “The data shows that the size of the economy in GDP terms is now smaller ...
One last thing before I quitI never wanted any moreThan I could fit into my headI still remember every single word you saidAnd all the shit that somehow came along with itStill, there's one thing that comforts meSince I was always caged and now I'm freeSongwriters: David Grohl / Georg ...
Sparse offerings outside a Te Kauwhata church. Meanwhile, the Government is cutting spending in ways that make thousands of hungry children even hungrier, while also cutting funding for the charities that help them. It’s also doing that while winding back new building of affordable housing that would allow parents to ...
It is difficult to make sense of the Luxon Coalition Government’s economic management.This end-of-year review about the state of economic management – the state of the economy was last week – is not going to cover the National Party contribution. Frankly, like every other careful observer, I cannot make up ...
This morning I awoke to the lovely news that we are firmly back on track, that is if the scale was reversed.NZ ranks low in global economic comparisonsNew Zealand's economy has been ranked 33rd out of 37 in an international comparison of which have done best in 2024.Economies were ranked ...
Remember those silent movies where the heroine is tied to the railway tracks or going over the waterfall in a barrel? Finance Minister Nicola Willis seems intent on portraying herself as that damsel in distress. According to Willis, this country’s current economic problems have all been caused by the spending ...
Similar to the cuts and the austerity drive imposed by Ruth Richardson in the 1990’s, an era which to all intents and purposes we’ve largely fiddled around the edges with fixing in the time since – over, to be fair, several administrations – whilst trying our best it seems to ...
String-Pulling in the Dark: For the democratic process to be meaningful it must also be public. WITH TRUST AND CONFIDENCE in New Zealand’s politicians and journalists steadily declining, restoring those virtues poses a daunting challenge. Just how daunting is made clear by comparing the way politicians and journalists treated New Zealanders ...
Dear Nicola Willis, thank you for letting us know in so many words that the swingeing austerity hasn't worked.By in so many words I mean the bit where you said, Here is a sea of red ink in which we are drowning after twelve months of savage cost cutting and ...
The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral organisation committed to advancing open government. Countries which join are supposed to co-create regular action plans with civil society, committing to making verifiable improvements in transparency, accountability, participation, or technology and innovation for the above. And they're held to account through an Independent ...
Today I tuned into something strange: a press conference that didn’t make my stomach churn or the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. Which was strange, because it was about the torture of children. It was the announcement by Erica Stanford — on her own, unusually ...
This is a must watch, and puts on brilliant and practical display the implications and mechanics of fast-track law corruption and weakness.CLICK HERE: LINK TO WATCH VIDEOOur news media as it is set up is simply not equipped to deal with the brazen disinformation and corruption under this right wing ...
NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi Acting Secretary Erin Polaczuk is welcoming the announcement from Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety Brooke van Velden that she is opening consultation on engineered stone and is calling on her to listen to the evidence and implement a total ban of the product. “We need ...
The Government has announced a 1.5% increase in the minimum wage from 1 April 2025, well below forecast inflation of 2.5%. Unions have reacted strongly and denounced it as a real terms cut. PSA and the CTU are opposing a new round of staff cuts at WorkSafe, which they say ...
The decision to unilaterally repudiate the contract for new Cook Strait ferries is beginning to look like one of the stupidest decisions a New Zealand government ever made. While cancelling the ferries and their associated port infrastructure may have made this year's books look good, it means higher costs later, ...
Hi there! I’ve been overseas recently, looking after a situation with a family member. So apologies if there any less than focused posts! Vanuatu has just had a significant 7.3 earthquake. Two MFAT staff are unaccounted for with local fatalities.It’s always sad to hear of such things happening.I think of ...
Today is a special member's morning, scheduled to make up for the government's theft of member's days throughout the year. First up was the first reading of Greg Fleming's Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill, which was passed unanimously. Currently the House is debating the third reading of ...
We're going backwardsIgnoring the realitiesGoing backwardsAre you counting all the casualties?We are not there yetWhere we need to beWe are still in debtTo our insanitiesSongwriter: Martin Gore Read more ...
Willis blamed Treasury for changing its productivity assumptions and Labour’s spending increases since Covid for the worsening Budget outlook. Photo: Getty ImagesMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, December 18 in The Kākā’s Dawn Chorus podcast above ...
Today the Auckland Transport board meet for the last time this year. For those interested (and with time to spare), you can follow along via this MS Teams link from 10am. I’ve taken a quick look through the agenda items to see what I think the most interesting aspects are. ...
Hi,If you’re a New Zealander — you know who Mike King is. He is the face of New Zealand’s battle against mental health problems. He can be loud and brash. He raises, and is entrusted with, a lot of cash. Last year his “I Am Hope” charity reported a revenue ...
Probably about the only consolation available from yesterday’s unveiling of the Half-Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) is that it could have been worse. Though Finance Minister Nicola Willis has tightened the screws on future government spending, she has resisted the calls from hard-line academics, fiscal purists and fiscal hawks ...
The right have a stupid saying that is only occasionally true:When is democracy not democracy? When it hasn’t been voted on.While not true in regards to branches of government such as the judiciary, it’s a philosophy that probably should apply to recently-elected local government councillors. Nevertheless, this concept seemed to ...
Long story short: the Government’s austerity policy has driven the economy into a deeper and longer recession that means it will have to borrow $20 billion more over the next four years than it expected just six months ago. Treasury’s latest forecasts show the National-ACT-NZ First Government’s fiscal strategy of ...
Come and join myself and CTU Chief Economist for a pop-up ‘Hoon’ webinar on the Government’s Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) with paying subscribers to The Kākā for 30 minutes at 5 pm today.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream to watch our chat. Don’t worry if ...
In 1998, in the wake of the Paremoremo Prison riot, the Department of Corrections established the "Behaviour Management Regime". Prisoners were locked in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day, with no fresh air, no exercise, no social contact, no entertainment, and in some cases no clothes and ...
New data released by the Treasury shows that the economic policies of this Government have made things worse in the year since they took office, said NZCTU Economist Craig Renney. “Our fiscal indicators are all heading in the wrong direction – with higher levels of debt, a higher deficit, and ...
At the 2023 election, National basically ran on a platform of being better economic managers. So how'd that turn out for us? In just one year, they've fucked us for two full political terms: The government's books are set to remain deeply in the red for the near term ...
AUSTERITYText within this block will maintain its original spacing when publishedMy spreadsheet insists This pain leads straight to glory (File not found) Read more ...
The NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi are saying that the Government should do the right thing and deliver minimum wage increases that don’t see workers fall further behind, in response to today’s announcement that the minimum wage will only be increased by 1.5%, well short of forecast inflation. “With inflation forecast ...
Oh, I weptFor daysFilled my eyesWith silly tearsOh, yeaBut I don'tCare no moreI don't care ifMy eyes get soreSongwriters: Paul Rodgers / Paul Kossoff. Read more ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Bob HensonIn this aerial view, fingers of meltwater flow from the melting Isunnguata Sermia glacier descending from the Greenland Ice Sheet on July 11, 2024, near Kangerlussuaq, Greenland. According to the Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE), the ...
In August, I wrote an article about David Seymour1 with a video of his testimony, to warn that there were grave dangers to his Ministry of Regulation:David Seymour's Ministry of Slush Hides Far Greater RisksWhy Seymour's exorbitant waste of taxpayers' money could be the least of concernThe money for Seymour ...
Willis is expected to have to reveal the bitter fiscal fruits of her austerity strategy in the HYEFU later today. Photo: Lynn Grieveson/TheKakaMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Tuesday, December 17 in The Kākā’s Dawn Chorus podcast ...
On Friday the government announced it would double the number of toll roads in New Zealand as well as make a few other changes to how toll roads are used in the country. The real issue though is not that tolling is being used but the suggestion it will make ...
The Prime Minister yesterday engaged in what looked like a pre-emptive strike designed to counter what is likely to be a series of depressing economic statistics expected before the end of the week. He opened his weekly post-Cabinet press conference with a recitation of the Government’s achievements. “It certainly has ...
This whooping cough story from south Auckland is a good example of the coalition government’s approach to social need – spend money on urging people to get vaccinated but only after you’ve cut the funding to where they could get vaccinated. This has been the case all year with public ...
And if there is a GodI know he likes to rockHe likes his loud guitarsHis spiders from MarsAnd if there is a GodI know he's watching meHe likes what he seesBut there's trouble on the breezeSongwriter: William Patrick Corgan Read more ...
Here’s a quick round up of today’s political news:1. MORE FOOD BANKS, CHARITIES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS AND YOUTH SOCIAL SERVICES SET TO CLOSE OR SCALE BACK AROUND THE COUNTRY AS GOVT CUTS FUNDINGSome of Auckland's largest foodbanks are warning they may need to close or significantly reduce food parcels after ...
Iain Rennie, CNZMSecretary and Chief Executive to the TreasuryDear Secretary, Undue restrictions on restricted briefings This week, the Treasury barred representatives from four organisations, including the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi, from attending the restricted briefing for the Half-Year Economic and Fiscal Update. We had been ...
This is a guest post by Tim Adriaansen, a community, climate, and accessibility advocate.I won’t shut up about climate breakdown, and whenever possible I try to shift the focus of a climate conversation towards solutions. But you’ll almost never hear me give more than a passing nod to ...
A grassroots backlash has forced a backdown from Brown, but he is still eyeing up plenty of tolls for other new roads. And the pressure is on Willis to ramp up the Government’s austerity strategy. Photo: Getty ImagesMōrena. Long stories short, the six things that matter in Aotearoa’s political economy ...
Hi all,I'm pretty overwhelmed by all your messages and emails today; thank you so very much.As much as my newsletter this morning was about money, and we all need to earn money, it was mostly about world domination if I'm honest. 😉I really hate what’s happening to our country, and ...
A listing of 23 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, December 8, 2024 thru Sat, December 14, 2024. Listing by Category Like last week's summary this one contains the list of articles twice: based on categories and based on ...
I started writing this morning about Hobson’s Pledge, examining the claims they and their supporters make, basically ripping into them. But I kept getting notifications coming through, and not good ones.Each time I looked up, there was another un-subscription message, and I felt a bit sicker at the thought of ...
Once, long before there was Harry and Meghan and Dodi and all those episodes of The Crown, they came to spend some time with us, Charles and Diana. Was there anyone in the world more glamorous than the Princess of Wales?Dazzled as everyone was by their company, the leader of ...
The collective right have a problem.The entire foundation for their world view is antiscientific. Their preferred economic strategies have been disproven. Their whole neoliberal model faces accusations of corporate corruption and worsening inequality. Climate change not only definitely exists, its rapid progression demands an immediate and expensive response in order ...
Just ten days ago, South Korea's president attempted a self-coup, declaring martial law and attempting to have opposition MPs murdered or arrested in an effort to seize unconstrained power. The attempt was rapidly defeated by the national assembly voting it down and the people flooding the streets to defend democracy. ...
Hi,“What I love about New Zealanders is that sometimes you use these expressions that as Americans we have no idea what those things mean!"I am watching a 30-something year old American ramble on about how different New Zealanders are to Americans. It’s his podcast, and this man is doing a ...
What Chris Penk has granted holocaust-denier and equal-opportunity-bigot Candace Owens is not “freedom of speech”. It’s not even really freedom of movement, though that technically is the right she has been granted. What he has given her is permission to perform. Freedom of SpeechIn New Zealand, the right to freedom ...
All those tears on your cheeksJust like deja vu flow nowWhen grandmother speaksSo tell me a story (I'll tell you a story)Spell it out, I can't hear (What do you want to hear?)Why you wear black in the morning?Why there's smoke in the air? Songwriter: Greg Johnson.Mōrena all ☀️Something a ...
National has only been in power for a year, but everywhere you look, its choices are taking New Zealand a long way backwards. In no particular order, here are the National Government's Top 50 Greatest Misses of its first year in power. ...
The Government is quietly undertaking consultation on the dangerous Regulatory Standards Bill over the Christmas period to avoid too much attention. ...
The Government’s planned changes to the freedom of speech obligations of universities is little more than a front for stoking the political fires of disinformation and fear, placing teachers and students in the crosshairs. ...
The Ministry of Regulation’s report into Early Childhood Education (ECE) in Aotearoa raises serious concerns about the possibility of lowering qualification requirements, undermining quality and risking worse outcomes for tamariki, whānau, and kaiako. ...
A Bill to modernise the role of Justices of the Peace (JP), ensuring they remain active in their communities and connected with other JPs, has been put into the ballot. ...
Labour will continue to fight unsustainable and destructive projects that are able to leap-frog environment protection under National’s Fast-track Approvals Bill. ...
The Green Party has warned that a Green Government will revoke the consents of companies who override environmental protections as part of Fast-Track legislation being passed today. ...
The Green Party says the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update shows how the Government is failing to address the massive social and infrastructure deficits our country faces. ...
The Government’s latest move to reduce the earnings of migrant workers will not only hurt migrants but it will drive down the wages of Kiwi workers. ...
Te Pāti Māori has this morning issued a stern warning to Fast-Track applicants with interests in mining, pledging to hold them accountable through retrospective liability and to immediately revoke Fast-Track consents under a future Te Pāti Māori government. This warning comes ahead of today’s third reading of the Fast-Track Approvals ...
The Government’s announcement today of a 1.5 per cent increase to minimum wage is another blow for workers, with inflation projected to exceed the increase, meaning it’s a real terms pay reduction for many. ...
All the Government has achieved from its announcement today is to continue to push responsibility back on councils for its own lack of action to help bring down skyrocketing rates. ...
The Government has used its final post-Cabinet press conference of the year to punch down on local government without offering any credible solutions to the issues our councils are facing. ...
The Government has failed to keep its promise to ‘super charge’ the EV network, delivering just 292 chargers - less than half of the 670 chargers needed to meet its target. ...
The Green Party is calling for the Government to stop subsidising the largest user of the country’s gas supplies, Methanex, following a report highlighting the multi-national’s disproportionate influence on energy prices in Aotearoa. ...
The Green Party is appalled with the Government’s new child poverty targets that are based on a new ‘persistent poverty’ measure that could be met even with an increase in child poverty. ...
New independent analysis has revealed that the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) will reduce emissions by a measly 1 per cent by 2030, failing to set us up for the future and meeting upcoming targets. ...
The loss of 27 kaimahi at Whakaata Māori and the end of its daily news bulletin is a sad day for Māori media and another step backwards for Te Tiriti o Waitangi justice. ...
Yesterday the Government passed cruel legislation through first reading to establish a new beneficiary sanction regime that will ultimately mean more households cannot afford the basic essentials. ...
Today's passing of the Government's Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill–which allows landlords to end tenancies with no reason–ignores the voice of the people and leaves renters in limbo ahead of the festive season. ...
After wasting a year, Nicola Willis has delivered a worse deal for the Cook Strait ferries that will end up being more expensive and take longer to arrive. ...
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has today launched a Member’s Bill to sanction Israel for its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as the All Out For Gaza rally reaches Parliament. ...
After years of advocacy, the Green Party is very happy to hear the Government has listened to our collective voices and announced the closure of the greyhound racing industry, by 1 August 2026. ...
In response to a new report from ERO, the Government has acknowledged the urgent need for consistency across the curriculum for Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) in schools. ...
The Green Party is appalled at the Government introducing legislation that will make it easier to penalise workers fighting for better pay and conditions. ...
Thank you for the invitation to speak with you tonight on behalf of the political party I belong to - which is New Zealand First. As we have heard before this evening the Kinleith Mill is proposing to reduce operations by focusing on pulp and discontinuing “lossmaking paper production”. They say that they are currently consulting on the plan to permanently shut ...
Auckland Central MP, Chlöe Swarbrick, has written to Mayor Wayne Brown requesting he stop the unnecessary delays on St James Theatre’s restoration. ...
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says Health New Zealand will move swiftly to support dozens of internationally-trained doctors already in New Zealand on their journey to employment here, after a tripling of sought-after examination places. “The Medical Council has delivered great news for hardworking overseas doctors who want to contribute ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has appointed Sarah Ottrey to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). “At my first APEC Summit in Lima, I experienced firsthand the role that ABAC plays in guaranteeing political leaders hear the voice of business,” Mr Luxon says. “New Zealand’s ABAC representatives are very well respected and ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced four appointments to New Zealand’s intelligence oversight functions. The Honourable Robert Dobson KC has been appointed Chief Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, and the Honourable Brendan Brown KC has been appointed as a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants. The appointments of Hon Robert Dobson and Hon ...
Improvements in the average time it takes to process survey and title applications means housing developments can progress more quickly, Minister for Land Information Chris Penk says. “The government is resolutely focused on improving the building and construction pipeline,” Mr Penk says. “Applications to issue titles and subdivide land are ...
The Government’s measures to reduce airport wait times, and better transparency around flight disruptions is delivering encouraging early results for passengers ahead of the busy summer period, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Improving the efficiency of air travel is a priority for the Government to give passengers a smoother, more reliable ...
The Government today announced the intended closure of the Apollo Hotel as Contracted Emergency Housing (CEH) in Rotorua, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. This follows a 30 per cent reduction in the number of households in CEH in Rotorua since National came into Government. “Our focus is on ending CEH in the Whakarewarewa area starting ...
The Government will reshape vocational education and training to return decision making to regions and enable greater industry input into work-based learning Tertiary Education and Skills Minister, Penny Simmonds says. “The redesigned system will better meet the needs of learners, industry, and the economy. It includes re-establishing regional polytechnics that ...
The Government is taking action to better manage synthetic refrigerants and reduce emissions caused by greenhouse gases found in heating and cooling products, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds says. “Regulations will be drafted to support a product stewardship scheme for synthetic refrigerants, Ms. Simmonds says. “Synthetic refrigerants are found in a ...
People travelling on State Highway 1 north of Hamilton will be relieved that remedial works and safety improvements on the Ngāruawāhia section of the Waikato Expressway were finished today, with all lanes now open to traffic, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“I would like to acknowledge the patience of road users ...
Tertiary Education and Skills Minister, Penny Simmonds, has announced a new appointment to the board of Education New Zealand (ENZ). Dr Erik Lithander has been appointed as a new member of the ENZ board for a three-year term until 30 January 2028. “I would like to welcome Dr Erik Lithander to the ...
The Government will have senior representatives at Waitangi Day events around the country, including at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, but next year Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has chosen to take part in celebrations elsewhere. “It has always been my intention to celebrate Waitangi Day around the country with different ...
Two more criminal gangs will be subject to the raft of laws passed by the Coalition Government that give Police more powers to disrupt gang activity, and the intimidation they impose in our communities, Police Minister Mark Mitchell says. Following an Order passed by Cabinet, from 3 February 2025 the ...
Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Justice Christian Whata as a Judge of the Court of Appeal. Justice Whata’s appointment as a Judge of the Court of Appeal will take effect on 1 August 2025 and fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon Justice David Goddard on ...
The latest economic figures highlight the importance of the steps the Government has taken to restore respect for taxpayers’ money and drive economic growth, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. Data released today by Stats NZ shows Gross Domestic Product fell 1 per cent in the September quarter. “Treasury and most ...
Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds and Associate Minister of Education David Seymour today announced legislation changes to strengthen freedom of speech obligations on universities. “Freedom of speech is fundamental to the concept of academic freedom and there is concern that universities seem to be taking a more risk-averse ...
Police Minister, Mark Mitchell, and Internal Affairs Minister, Brooke van Velden, today launched a further Public Safety Network cellular service that alongside last year’s Cellular Roaming roll-out, puts globally-leading cellular communications capability into the hands of our emergency responders. The Public Safety Network’s new Cellular Priority service means Police, Wellington ...
State Highway 1 through the Mangamuka Gorge has officially reopened today, providing a critical link for Northlanders and offering much-needed relief ahead of the busy summer period, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“The Mangamuka Gorge is a vital route for Northland, carrying around 1,300 vehicles per day and connecting the Far ...
The Government has welcomed decisions by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and Ashburton District Council confirming funding to boost resilience in the Canterbury region, with construction on a second Ashburton Bridge expected to begin in 2026, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Delivering a second Ashburton Bridge to improve resilience and ...
The Government is backing the response into high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Otago, Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard says. “Cabinet has approved new funding of $20 million to enable MPI to meet unbudgeted ongoing expenses associated with the H7N6 response including rigorous scientific testing of samples at the enhanced PC3 ...
Legislation that will repeal all advertising restrictions for broadcasters on Sundays and public holidays has passed through first reading in Parliament today, Media Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “As a growing share of audiences get their news and entertainment from streaming services, these restrictions have become increasingly redundant. New Zealand on ...
Today the House agreed to Brendan Horsley being appointed Inspector-General of Defence, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “Mr Horsley’s experience will be invaluable in overseeing the establishment of the new office and its support networks. “He is currently Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, having held that role since June 2020. ...
Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says the Government has agreed to the final regulations for the levy on insurance contracts that will fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand from July 2026. “Earlier this year the Government agreed to a 2.2 percent increase to the rate of levy. Fire ...
The Government is delivering regulatory relief for New Zealand businesses through changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. “The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which was introduced today, is the second Bill – the other being the Statutes Amendment Bill - that ...
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed further progress on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway Road of National Significance (RoNS), with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Board approving funding for the detailed design of Stage 1, paving the way for main works construction to begin in late 2025.“The Government is moving at ...
The Government today released a request for information (RFI) to seeking interest in partnerships to plant trees on Crown-owned land with low farming and conservation value (excluding National Parks) Forestry Minister Todd McClay announced. “Planting trees on Crown-owned land will drive economic growth by creating more forestry jobs in our regions, providing more wood ...
Court timeliness, access to justice, and improving the quality of existing regulation are the focus of a series of law changes introduced to Parliament today by Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee. The three Bills in the Regulatory Systems (Justice) Amendment Bill package each improve a different part of the ...
A total of 41 appointments and reappointments have been made to the 12 community trusts around New Zealand that serve their regions, Associate Finance Minister Shane Jones says. “These trusts, and the communities they serve from the Far North to the deep south, will benefit from the rich experience, knowledge, ...
The Government has confirmed how it will provide redress to survivors who were tortured at the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit (the Lake Alice Unit). “The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care found that many of the 362 children who went through the Lake Alice Unit between 1972 and ...
It has been a busy, productive year in the House as the coalition Government works hard to get New Zealand back on track, Leader of the House Chris Bishop says. “This Government promised to rebuild the economy, restore law and order and reduce the cost of living. Our record this ...
“Accelerated silicosis is an emerging occupational disease caused by unsafe work such as engineered stone benchtops. I am running a standalone consultation on engineered stone to understand what the industry is currently doing to manage the risks, and whether further regulatory intervention is needed,” says Workplace Relations and Safety Minister ...
Mehemea he pai mō te tangata, mahia – if it’s good for the people, get on with it. Enhanced reporting on the public sector’s delivery of Treaty settlement commitments will help improve outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders, Māori Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka says. Compiled together for the ...
Mr Roger Holmes Miller and Ms Tarita Hutchinson have been appointed to the Charities Registration Board, Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Louise Upston says. “I would like to welcome the new members joining the Charities Registration Board. “The appointment of Ms Hutchinson and Mr Miller will strengthen the Board’s capacity ...
More building consent and code compliance applications are being processed within the statutory timeframe since the Government required councils to submit quarterly data, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “In the midst of a housing shortage we need to look at every step of the build process for efficiencies ...
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey is proud to announce the first three recipients of the Government’s $10 million Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund which will enable more Kiwis faster access to mental health and addiction support. “This fund is part of the Government’s commitment to investing in ...
New Zealand is providing Vanuatu assistance following yesterday's devastating earthquake, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says. "Vanuatu is a member of our Pacific family and we are supporting it in this time of acute need," Mr Peters says. "Our thoughts are with the people of Vanuatu, and we will be ...
The Government welcomes the Commerce Commission’s plan to reduce card fees for Kiwis by an estimated $260 million a year, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly says.“The Government is relentlessly focused on reducing the cost of living, so Kiwis can keep more of their hard-earned income and live a ...
Regulation Minister David Seymour has welcomed the Early Childhood Education (ECE) regulatory review report, the first major report from the Ministry for Regulation. The report makes 15 recommendations to modernise and simplify regulations across ECE so services can get on with what they do best – providing safe, high-quality care ...
The Government‘s Offshore Renewable Energy Bill to create a new regulatory regime that will enable firms to construct offshore wind generation has passed its first reading in Parliament, Energy Minister Simeon Brown says.“New Zealand currently does not have a regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy as the previous government failed ...
Legislation to enable new water service delivery models that will drive critical investment in infrastructure has passed its first reading in Parliament, marking a significant step towards the delivery of Local Water Done Well, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly say.“Councils and voters ...
New Zealand is one step closer to reaping the benefits of gene technology with the passing of the first reading of the Gene Technology Bill, Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins says. "This legislation will end New Zealand's near 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab and is ...
Cosmic CatastropheThe year draws to a close.King Luxon has grown tired of the long eveningsListening to the dreary squabbling of his Triumvirate.He strolls up to the top floor of the PalaceTo consult with his Astronomer Royal.The Royal Telescope scans the skies,And King Luxon stares up into the heavensFrom the terrestrial ...
Spinoff editor Mad Chapman and books editor Claire Mabey debate Carl Shuker’s new novel about… an editor. Claire: Hello Mad, you just finished The Royal Free – overall impressions? Mad: Hi Claire, I literally just put the book down and I would have to say my immediate impression is ...
Christmas and its buildup are often lonely, hard and full of unreasonable expectations. Here’s how to make it to Jesus’s birthday and find the little bit of joy we all deserve. Have you found this year relentless? Has the latest Apple update “fucked up your life”? Have you lost two ...
Despite overwhelming public and corporate support, the government has stalled progress on a modern day slavery law. That puts us behind other countries – and makes Christmas a time of tragedy rather than joy, argues Shanti Mathias. Picture the scene on Christmas Day. Everyone replete with nice things to eat, ...
Asia Pacific Report “It looks like Hiroshima. It looks like Germany at the end of World War Two,” says an Israeli-American historian and professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University about the horrifying reality of Gaza. Professor Omer Bartov, has described Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza as an ...
The New Zealand government coalition is tweaking university regulations to curb what it says is an increasingly “risk-averse approach” to free speech. The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues. Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” ...
Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone New York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione with “murder as an act of terrorism” in his alleged shooting of health insurance CEO Brian Thompson earlier this month. This news comes out at the same time as ...
Pacific Media Watch The union for Australian journalists has welcomed the delivery by the federal government of more than $150 million to support the sustainability of public interest journalism over the next four years. Combined with the announcement of the revamped News Bargaining Initiative, this could result in up to ...
MONDAY“Merry Xmas, and praise the Lord,” said Sheriff Luxon, and smiled for the camera. There was a flash of smoke when the shutter pressed down on the magnesium powder. The sheriff had arranged for a photographer from the Dodge Gazette to attend a ceremony where he handed out food parcels to ...
It’s a little under two months since the White Ferns shocked the cricketing world, deservedly taking home the T20 World Cup. Since then the trophy has had a tour around the country, five of the squad have played in the WBBL in Australia while most others have returned to domestic ...
Comment: If we say the word ‘dementia’, many will picture an older person struggling to remember the names of their loved ones, maybe a grandparent living out their final years in an aged care facility. Dementia can also occur in people younger than 65, but it can take time before ...
Piracy is a reality of modern life – but copyright law has struggled to play catch-up for as long as the entertainment industry has existed. As far back as 1988, the House of Lords criticised copyright law’s conflict with the reality of human behaviour in the context of burning cassette ...
As he makes a surprise return to Shortland Street, actor Craig Parker takes us through his life in television. Craig Parker has been a fixture on television in Aotearoa for nearly four decades. He had starring roles in iconic local series like Gloss, Mercy Peak and Diplomatic Immunity, featured in ...
The Ōtautahi musician shares the 10 tracks he loves to spin, including the folk classic that cured him of a ‘case of the give-ups’. When singer-songwriter Adam McGrath returns to Kumeu’s Auckland Folk Festival from January 24-27, he’s not planning on simply idling his way through – he wants the late ...
Alex Casey spends an afternoon on the job with River, the rescue dog on a mission to spread joy to Ōtautahi rest homes.Almost everyone says it is never enough time. But River the rescue dog, a jet black huntaway border collie cross, has to keep a tight pace to ...
Asia Pacific Report Fiji activists have recreated the nativity scene at a solidarity for Palestine gathering in Fiji’s capital Suva just days before Christmas. The Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre and Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network recreated the scene at the FWCC compound — a baby Jesus figurine lies amidst the ...
By 1News Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver and 1News reporters A number of Kiwis have been successfully evacuated from Vanuatu after a devastating earthquake shook the Pacific island nation earlier this week. The death toll was still unclear, though at least 14 people were killed according to an earlier statement from ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Scully, Professor in Modern History, University of New England Bunker.Image courtesy of Michael Leunig, CC BY-NC-SA Michael Leunig – who died in the early hours of Thursday December 19, surrounded by “his children, loved ones, and sunflowers” – was the ...
The House - On Parliament's last day of the year, there was the rare occurrence of a personal (conscience) vote on selling booze over the Easter weekend. While it didn't have the numbers to pass, it was a chance to get a rare glimpse of the fact ...
A new poem by Holly Fletcher. bejeweled log i was dreaming about wasps / wee darlings that followed me / ducking under objects / that i was fated to pickup / my fingers seeking / and meeting with tiny proboscis’s / but instead / i wake up / roll sideways ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne Versta/Shutterstock Australians are exposed to some of the highest levels of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the world. While we ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Terry, Professor of Business Regulation, University of Sydney Michael von Aichberger/Shutterstock Even if you’ve no idea how the business model underpinning franchises works, there’s a good chance you’ve spent money at one. Franchising is essentially a strategy for cloning ...
If something big is going to happen in Ferndale, it’s going to happen at Christmas. This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. If there’s one episode of Shortland Street you should watch each year, it’s the annual Christmas cliffhanger. The final episode of ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William A. Stoltz, Lecturer and expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University US President-elect Donald Trump has named most of the members of his proposed cabinet. However, he’s yet to reveal key appointees to America’s powerful cyber warfare and intelligence institutions. ...
Announcing the top 10 books of the the year at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 Intermezzo by Sally Rooney (Faber & Faber, $37) The phenomenal Irish writer is the unsurprising chart topper for 2024 with her fourth novel that, much like her first ...
The government has confirmed its plan to break up Te Pūkenga / New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology and re-establish independent polytechnics. ...
“Who said; cuts to company tax will benefit workers?” (Dawe is unable to even say the phrase with a straight face).
Genius.
Our Jude would make a great maggie t.
Don’t you mean Maggo t?
Minister For Corruption & Oravida scores a 10
I have been following the discussion following on from redlogix post on DV. The broken post and men dominate discussion post.
I thought RL post brave and honest and an invitation to explore a dark underside to our beautiful country.
This opportunity was lost when it turned into a bun fight.
Offence can only be offered.
I value most contributors here, either being informed or forgiving as they know not what they do.
As with all communities you are gonna get folk that are harder to like and that is one of the strengths of this site.
Hi gsays,
I actually like Red for the most part so honestly for me it’s the politics not a personality thing.
If any man wants to write about domestic violence issues from a male perspective I will welcome that if they can do so without running MRA-like lines or trying to undermine women or feminism. If they want to run those lines then they need to be prepared for a fight, because women are having to deal with that stuff at the cutting edge in ways that many people here are unaware of, and there are real world consequences for women from what Red was saying. Until that awareness changes it will always be a conflict.
btw, I didn’t see it as a bun fight and I’ve been in quite a few gender convos on ts in the past. I saw a whole lot of people step up in Red’s thread and disagree clearly and with good political argument. Haven’t read much of Tracey’s thread yet though.
hi weka, normally i get acronyms, but i havent worked out what mra is, could you please enlighten me?
Men’s Rights Activists. A political movement which focuses on some issues that affect men but does so in the context of attacking and undermining feminism and women. It tends to reject political analysis of systemic oppression and instead tries to make out that men aren’t affored privilege and power by the patriarchal systems that we live in.
For example, the idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue. It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women, and the reasons underlying that that are societal and structural. It sets up strawmen such as the idea that domestic violence is gendered comes from feminists thinking all men are violent or somehow bad, when in fact feminism doesn’t say that. It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.
thanks, plenty to mull over there.
Great explanation weka – thanks
that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue.
Logically that does not follow. Or do feminists not consider men to be human?
It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women
Not a strong statement given the many, many studies that confirm women perpetrate all manner of abuse and violence, and it is probably more due to a weakness of limb than purity of heart that holds them back from achieving equally bad statistics with men.
But I can see why this framing is important to you and I’m not going to disrespect that.
and the reasons underlying that that are societal and structural.
Not much quibble on that in general. Agreed.
It sets up strawmen such as the idea that domestic violence is gendered comes from feminists thinking all men are violent or somehow bad
OK so not all men are abusers.
It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.
But now we all are and you’re going to punish us all for it.
At least that is how I read it; maybe you’d care to clarify?
imo red this
“Not a strong statement given the many, many studies that confirm women perpetrate all manner of abuse and violence, and it is probably more due to a weakness of limb than purity of heart that holds them back from achieving equally bad statistics with men.”
is where your problem lies.
Or perhaps this particular bit “and it is probably more”
and remember the above was in response to
“It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women”
You cannot see the “by far” qualifier – you are blinded to it – perhaps by the abuse you suffered or maybe some other reason but the qualifier is there imo so that debate CAN occur not as a poke to get you to retaliate – which is how I interpret your response to weka’s sentence.
Can you understand what I am saying?
Can you see that I am NOT attacking you?
Can you see that your response was disproportionate to the sentence that you responded to?
Can you see how that could escalate the intensity or heat of the discussion?
That is just one example – I ask you to seriously consider your emotions around this, your judgments about yourself and others, and what you want to achieve from this.
marty….. This is in its own little way an example of violence, and so the circle remains unbroken
Can you elaborate on what you mean please Xanthe – I cannot see how what I wrote is an example of violence
Read it again.
Is it dialogue?
I wrote it Xanthe so believe me I don’t need to read it again. Sure it may not be dialogue (I could argue that but I’ll accept it), but it came from a place of compassion and genuine desire on my part to add something positive to the situation. Is that violence to you?
Read it again
I did ask for further explanation and you don’t want to do that – that’s cool, I love self selection.
Marty ” Can you see that your response was disproportionate to the sentence that you responded to?
Can you see how that could escalate the intensity or heat of the discussion?”
Because you find the reasonable suggestion that we look for the underlieing drivers of domestic violence rather than treating it as a male problem ….. uncomfortable and challenging
you attack and place the blame for that attack on the way he presented the suggestion.
That is both disingenuous and a form of violence
As you well know!
I have considerable experience of bullying. I know it when it happens
No – it wasn’t a form of violence, marty mars. Anything but. It was a reasoned response to a somewhat convoluted statement by Red L.
Spot on marty, the quailifier is the thing that makes the position inclusive.
Red, in the past week I’ve made a few comments as to why I won’t engage on the content of your post or comments. I’ll add another one. Every step of the way I have seen you misuse and IMO willfully misinterpret other people’s arguments. Here is a classic example that is very easy to see. You just selectively misquoted me. That alone will stop me from talking to you on the content.
weka…. And this
You still seem to be having trouble explaining what you mean.
I say exactly what i mean . And you know quite well what i am saying.
I do not enter into what i consider disingenuous dialogue,
own it .
Good, that will save me some bother.
Unlike most responses I get, I went to the trouble of carefully requoting your comment, pretty much sentence by sentence so as it was clear what I was talking about and the dialog might flow better.
Then I made a response to pretty much ALL of what you said. I was lot less selective about it than most people are. The bit I mostly left out was your first para because I didn’t have any issue with it. Ironically enough it wasn’t until you used the MRA acronym in a comment to me a while back did I even know what it was either.
So I went and took a look and while there are some interesting ideas there, there’s also a lot that isn’t attractive at all. Unlike what you seem to think I’m no fan of the MRA scene because they seem locked into a confrontational mode of action that’s a complete dead end.
But now you are unhappy because you feel I willfully misquoted you. Geeze how do you think I feel after the shitstorm of misrepresentation and unmitigated personal abuse I’ve been on the wrong end the past few days? Really … I don’t ask that question rhetorically.
I repeat; “At least that is how I read it; maybe you’d care to clarify?”
Red, you selectively quoted me. I’ve then told you that you’ve mis quoted me. Are you trying to tell me that I don’t know what my own comment meant and intended?
Seems a reasonable assumption
I quoted you quite extensively and only left out the bit I largely agreed with.
Are you trying to tell me that I don’t know what my own comment meant and intended?
In the past whenever I’ve tried saying something like that it’s been comprehensively scorned and shat all over. Intentions being apparently worthless.
Actually, it seems to be you who is blinded by it. Studies show that women and men commit similar amounts of violence and abuse. The violence by men causes far more physical damage than that done by women and so we hear more of it but that doesn’t mean that violence by women doesn’t happen at close to the same rate.
My response to that is for men to start being active around solving the issues of violence against them without trying to undo the work that women have done. It’s actually not that hard an approach. The problem comes when men want to deny the structural issues that exist because of the patriarchal system (or whatever we want to call it) and how that system privileges people differently. I get that men don’t want to be blamed, but that’s a different thing than saying that each gender is just as violent as the other. The dynamics are different and I think the one thing we can assume here is that women see violence as a different thing than what you are suggesting, so there is a power struggle right there. Because women have been working on violence within a system that automaticaly affords them less power, they’re not going to respond well to yet another attempt to disempower them.
It may just be better(more) communication but it seems that violence (from all sources) is increasing.
It is tempting to draw a correlation with the increasing economic inequality that is occuring
Ie is the underlieing driver of all violence is economic violence
(Not saying it is or isnt , just seeing if this model gives useful insight that could help prevent or forwarn of instances of violence)
Draco, there are only a few hundred female prisoners in NZ, at a reasonable guess there are in the region of 20 times as many men in jail. That doesn’t marry up with your similar levels of violence thing.
Then there is this,
‘Women are as likely to perpetrate domestic violence as men’. This one came up in the recent BBC documentary about ‘The Rise of Female Violence’, though to its marginal credit, the beeb only claimed this for ‘low level domestic violence’. First of all, we shouldn’t assume that if women perpetrate domestic violence, it’s always against men — some women have relationships with people of other genders too (and we don’t celebrate violence in those relationships either, especially as there is a real dearth of specialist service provision for survivors of domestic violence who are LGBTQ— which are also in fact the services that men experiencing domestic violence are most likely to need [1]). Furthermore, when women do commit ‘low level domestic violence’, it’s usually either self-defence or ‘co-violence’ — women are sole perpetrators in less than 4% of reported incidents [2]. This leads on to the next myth that needs to be debunked.
http://www.sistersuncut.org/2015/11/17/domestic-violence-and-gender-or-what-about-the-men-5-myths-debunked/
I find it interesting that men want to argue that women are as violent as men just in a less violent way. Which just comes across as self-serving mansplaining. I’m open the conversation happening in a different way, but given the whole point about power and how it gets given and used I’m not settling for a conversation where men come in and say Labour does it too.
The authors of the American CTS studies stress that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men [Orman, 1998]. Husbands have higher rates of the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence, their violent acts are repeated more often, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and women are financially and socially locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men. In fact, Straus expresses his concern that “the statistics are likely to be misused by misogynists and apologists for male violence” [cited in Orman, 1998].
http://www.xyonline.net/content/claims-about-husband-battering
Etc etc etc.
I’m far less interested in exhanging internet links than I am in having a real conversation about violence. I don’t see this happening and that’s because of how Red framed it at the start.
Are you suggesting that rates of incarceration give meaningful data on offending?
I am dubious
Yes, which people are convicted does give an insight into who commits violence in this land. We do not have a dirty secret of abuse equivalent to the scale of the Catholic Church but committed by mothers, aunties and sisters in this country. Unless you can show me that we do?
@ maui
The fact there are far more male prisoners than female prisoners is irrelevant. Men tend to commit more physical and sex-related violence and it is reflected in the prison rate. Women on the other hand tend to use other means of violence and intimidation that are harder to prove because they are often carried out in a clandestine manner. And even when some form of direct physical violence is present, it is often the male victim who ends up being treated like the suspect. As a result there is far less reporting of violent acts by women against men.
Anne, that sounds like a story to me. Equally I can tell you a story that women don’t go to the police to report the abuse they and their kids suffer. Now which story sounds more like real life to you? And which is more relevant to exposing domestic violence in NZ. Where are the reformed female abusers who are sharing their story to the public because it needs some sunlight?
Thank-you for insulting me maui. I don’t make up stories. I suggest you read Draco below who has linked to what I am sure is peer removed research.
You have attempted to conflate one issue with another in order to prove a point – whatever precisely it may be. We are talking in general terms about the level of violence perpetrated by men and woman alike. If you are not prepared to accept that men can be equally victims of violence too then that is an indictment on your closed mind. The terrible abuse some women and children have been forced to suffer – often over long periods of time – is not being refuted by anyone here. All some of us are trying to point out is that women can also inflict serious damage to their partners. Indeed they can inflict serious damage on other individuals too which is something I can testify to.
For your information it took me 10 years to recover from what was done to me. I had to start from scratch… rebuild my life… my confidence and self esteem… and the hardest lesson of all was learning to trust people again.
Just returned. Dammit, ‘removed’ in first paragraph is meant to be ‘approved’.
Lesson: don’t comment unless you have time.
Thanks to all of you who stand up for reason and honesty.
It will prevail eventually
Those locked into their self serving prejudice ….. i hope you can find grace somewhere, in the meanwhile i really hope no one lets you anywhere near any potential domestic conflict. You potentially can cause real harm.
I should let DtB answer for himself, but the answer to your question seems to be embedded in his comment already:
he violence by men causes far more physical damage than that done by women and so we hear more of it
Also even when women do cause serious harm, it’s rarely reported. Many men on the wrong end of it don’t even begin to frame it as abuse. And when we do, it’s often not taken seriously, we run a high risk of being falsely accused as perpetrators and get no serious support.
To repeat, yes men are stronger and cause more damage. Everyone fully expects that at least 70% of the serious damage and harm will be done by men. But I maintain that discrepancy more a consequence of biology than sociology. (Maybe there lies the crux of our disagreement.)
The term ‘patriarchy’ while useful at one time has become another barrier. As many people have already said, in the bigger picture patriarchy harms men almost as much as it does women. It’s more about social hierarchy, gross inequality and unjust exploitation than it is about gender. It forms the basis of the greed based, unconstrained capitalism that oppresses virtually all of humanity in pretty much equal measure.
Again feminism has a LOT of interesting and vital things to say about patriarchy, but decoupling the concept from gender might well lower the barrier to more people accepting it. Maybe we need a new word for it.
Not sure if you can watch this 10 min video from where you are, but this is real life. http://www.tv3.co.nz/THE-HUI-The-Hui-Ep3-Part-2/tabid/3692/articleID/126275/Default.aspx
Quick synopsis of the clip: Turangi midwife sees 50% of client mothers in domestic violence situations. So taking this into account, from your world view this would mean pregnant women instigating attacks from their partners. Or solely pregnant women being the ones inflicting damage on their male partners. I can’t reconcile that I’m sorry, and I can’t think of anyone I know in real life who would make those assumptions either.
I can’t do the video, but your synopsis doesn’t surprise me. Pregnancy is a time of heightened emotions for both partners, that often catalyses both the best and worst for each of them.
In my experience (and it’s only from a sample of one) pregnancy stimulates some very deep and primitive instincts in the mother. Unless you are prepared for them, or at least are confident enough as a man to deal with them, they can be very confronting. Cause can never stand in for excuse, but it’s exactly the kind of thing I have in mind when I’m taking about the need to understand root causes better.
Men too react in many subtle and unconscious ways to their partner being pregnant; and most of us are completely unprepared for these intense feelings. So it does not surprise me at all that pregnancy is a time of increased risk of violence. Personally I can think of few things sadder than a young pregnant mother beaten and hurt by her partner … and mostly for reasons that are probably quite avoidable.
But of course most women are not pregnant all their lives; which in real life is time enough.
What that video says is that there is something going on in very economically depressed Turangi which the health and law enforcement authorities need to get to the bottom of.
The health authorities are very much aware of the issue, have people who know about the issues on the ground (like midwives) and reformed male abusers and they do campaigns on addressing the issue. A pity there’s a sub section of society who have alternate theories on what the health issue is, a bit like the beliefs of climate deniers I might add.
The Surprising Truth About Women and Violence
I should have been more clear and said similar amounts of domestic violence.
And then there’s this bit:
it seems but it isn’t – thank you for your concern draco
No, you actually are blinded by your biases.
If you say so I shall give it due consideration.
Can I ask for clarification weka? Specifically on this bit “…the idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue”
Are you claiming that if one was to say that domestic violence is a human violence issue, that just by saying that, political analysis of systemic oppression is ‘rubbished’? Or are you meaning to say that it can and sometimes is used in that way?
I think that MRA-like arguments I have read say that it’s not a gender issue/ it’s a human issue as part and parcel of trying to negate the idea that the patriarchal system is a real thing that affects men and women differently (they also seem to be doing the same kind of strawman thing there by saying that feminism claims that the analyses of the patriarchy mean that women think men are all to blame, at which point its very hard not to start rolling ones eyes).
So yes, if someone wants to discuss domestic violence within the context of how humans are violent in general, that’s not a problem. But if they want to mistate feminist theory and then try and use that to support their position and undermine feminism, I say fuck off. Or if they want to misuse research, statistics and analyses of social dymanics, same thing.
Thanks.
gsays and weka – I’ve been enjoying (not sure that’s the right word – stimulated maybe – perhaps “reminded” and “activated” might be more correct ) by the Broken and Men Dominate discussions ), and I appreciated Red Logix’s comments – even if they were being offered in a context which might not have been appropriate.
We all have our different life experiences – some are more painful than others – and what I have learned thru those, is that you can never tell what someone else has been through, even if they’re looking and sounding okay. So – along with an understanding that not everyone can express themselves as well as they’d like, then maybe a degree of tolerance is required.
This sounds ideal, but is very difficult to put into practice. And somehow its easier to be dismissive of people on The Standard and other blogs, and on Facebook, rather than face-to-face in real life. I’m not very good at it, either.
Shit – I hope this doesn’t sound patronising . From an older age point-of-view. Not meant to be.
Just saying – these have been stimulating discussions, and they’ve brought up a lot of memories – good and bad.
And I wanted to comment on the anonymity thing as well – I started out on The Standard being anonymous. But – I’m now old enough (getting towards ancient), not sure if I’m tough enough – but decided it didn’t matter any more – so became the real me.
But I’m sure the real me is a lot nicer in writing, than the REAL me is !
hi jenny, i have been extremely fortunate not to have been a victim of violence.
i also have been close to some folk who have been in extremely unhealthy relationships, ranging from the psychological ‘water on a rock’ type abuse through to the serious hospitalizing because of assault.
it is hard to act, to act appropriately and effectively without isolating the victim further from support.
especially with the smaller incidents, the precurser events.
re pseudonyms, i picked this tag when i started commenting as, to my eyes, back then most folk on ts had them.
i find if someone is a dick or trolling, i just ignore them.
also want to add, i like the more vigorous moderating. stopping distracters and trolls.
i like dissenting opinions as it makes me look closer at what i believe, but some of these folks are more diversionary.
Hi Jenny, I also found the discussions stimulating and I’m heartened by the fact that they were more civil than usual.
I suppose I’m still wondering if some people don’t fully get what the objection to Red’s post was. Yes it was the context. But it’s also the politics. It’s brave of him to tell his personal story. I have no problem with anyone doing that and I know that most feminists not only support survivors of all genders using their experiences to talk about their politics, but that most feminists have men in their lives and so value men as a class.
What I have a problem with is Red’s politics around gender and violence, and his subsequent arguments that are essentially anti-feminist and underming of the politics of oppression that explains so much of women’s experiences. I have had quite a few conversations with him now over the years about this and I no longer have any tolerance for what he does. He is able to explain himself reasonably well so I don’t think this is an issue of him not being understood. I think it’s an issue of many people rejecting his basic premises (eg the biology arguments, tha idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, his very poor understanding of what feminism is and does). Those basic premises get criticised and then he tries to defend them, and in amongst all that his story gets mixed up. But the story of what happened to him isn’t the problem, it’s how he is using that to inform his politics that is.
I will always support people to be able to talk about their experiences. But you are right, I have zero tolerance for people then using those to underpin some pretty abhorrent politics esp where those politics actively harm others. I’m not dismissive of Red (him and I have talked all sort of politics over the years), but I am now pretty dismissive of his gender politics. Much of that is due to the fact that it is such a waste of time and a huge distraction to have to argue about things that are fundamentall agin to progressive politics. We have urgent gender issues to work on, many of us have been working on them for a very long time, and the kinds of ideas that Red is pushing are part of a bigger agenda to undermine women and many of the gains made in recent decades.
” But the story of what happened to him isn’t the problem, it’s how he is using that to inform his politics that is.”
Thanks Weka for the clarification re Red L and his gender politics – I hadn’t registered his previous comments on those issues – maybe I just misssed them because of other interesting discussions going on elsewhere.
I don’t think we’ve had any of those big gender discussions for a quite a while. In the past they’ve been ugly, so it was good to see this one relatively straight forward.
” Much of that is due to the fact that it is such a waste of time and a huge distraction to have to argue about things that are fundamentall agin to progressive politics. ”
This neatly sums up why “progressive politics” is stalled, meanwhile we all career to distruction.
The inevitable outcome of the use of factionalisation as a campaigning tool is that you create a pool of voters that vote against you.
When you entwine that with environmental and fairness issues you do real harm.
Its sad
Who uses factionalism as a campaigning tool?
Are you being disingenuous or niave ?
Anyway there is a higher proportion of female sociopaths in positions of power then 20 years ago so it was worth the harm done
Personally i strive for less sociopathic bullys overall
“Are you being disingenuous or niave ?”
Neither. I’m asking you to explain a political point you just made so that I don’t have to waste time trying to second guess. Are you going to?
Ok i am settling on naive
If you are unaware of the factionalisation of the “progressive parties” and the inevitable result large scale voter turn off then i dont see how i am going to convince you.
really? .. you really dont get this?
Positive discrimination is an oxymoron, discrimination is wrong whatever the cause
I know it, you know it, and a majority of voters know it
So i guess you will tell me it isn’t happening? But if it looks like a duck , quacks like a duck, and craps everywhere , most people will see a duck.
That is not in any way to detract from the realities of the many and increasing inequalities we live with. just to make the point that a just cause dosn’t make wrong right and you do more harm than good if you act like it does!
“If you are unaware of the factionalisation of the “progressive parties” and the inevitable result large scale voter turn off then i dont see how i am going to convince you.”
I’m simply asking you to explain what YOU mean by those things, so there can be clear communication. I could guess what you mean, but honestly, if you can’t be bothered with communicating well I don’t see why I should either.
I don’t understand your comments either, Xanthe, re factionalisation of left parties. Can you clarify what you mean by this word – factionalisation please, and how does it occur ?
Perhaps an example would help.
Hi jenny
the purpose of governance is to find the best solutions for all, the purpose of elections or appointments either in government or within political parties is to appoint those who will best serve all.
Factionalisation occurs when candidates present as representing the interest of some demographic (gender, race, age, religion, idiology, whatever) and those demographs vote for the candidate that will best further the interest of that demograph.
It seems harmless enought but it is actually an unethical abuse of the democratic process, a bit around the edges does little harm, when it becomes the dominant feature of party or government the purpose of government and democracy is lost
that is quite significantly were the “progressive parties” are at
Obviously thats Just the short version
anti-feminist and underming of the politics of oppression that explains so much of women’s experiences.
I agree that my view does not line up with the usual feminist conventions. Although to be quite plain, feminism itself seems to have so many interpretations it’s not simple to conform to one linear narrative anymore.
Having said that, I’ll paraphrase what I’ve said before, that feminism has played a vital role in identifying and making visible the issue of dv. In that sense I’m hardly ‘anti-feminist’ … or whatever that is supposed to mean.
Really my view boils down to this. By placing most of it’s focus on the visible story of male violence on women and children the standard feminist narrative has become a hindrance to progress. I point to the flat-lining statistics that seem to be as bad as ever they were. We aren’t making progress and I think we need to look closer at the reasons why.
It is plain as day that the so called ‘gender wars’ have factionalised men and women against each other. That isn’t my doing, it’s just obvious after a few passes around the net. I think that is a hindrance. We will only solve this problem if men and women trust each other and help each other through this.
My approach is to treat the underlying root causes of intimate partner violence as a gender neutral, human problem that is aimed at understanding the drivers of behaviour and avoids blame.
And I think I can mostly say I’ve never been openly dismissive of your views weka. Not like you are now.
“In that sense I’m hardly ‘anti-feminist’ … or whatever that is supposed to mean.”
That’s right, you don’t know what I, as a feminist, mean. And until you are willing to take the time to learn that, I’m not longer willing to debate content with you on this topic.
“And I think I can mostly say I’ve never been openly dismissive of your views weka. Not like you are now.”
Maybe, but my memory over multiple conversations is that you routinely avoided dealing directly with the arguments pointing out the problems in what you are presenting. So it’s not as overt, but your dismissal is still there. And it’s horrible to debate with. I’ve reach my limit, so I’m making my dismissal overt.
As I’ve said, I have very good reasons for not engaging in debating the content of your post or comments. I’m not the only one that feels like it’s a waste of time and/or a big distraction.
Weka, I agree that RL did politicise his post and use some unfortunate stereotypes, but the thing that did strike me about the whole thread was the fact that males in abusive relationships are just told to get out of the relationship, that is your only option. Imagine if that is the only advice we gave females in abusive relationships, it’s simply not that easy.
There is no refuge available for men, retaliation is not and should never be an option and to my knowledge there are no support groups available to abused men. In fact, NZ’s Domestic Violence support groups openly exclude and even blame men:
“Every year, Shine directly helps thousands of adult and child victims of domestic abuse to be safer, and we motivate hundreds of men that hurt their families to change their behaviour”
http://www.2shine.org.nz/how-shine-helps/shine-services
“Women’s Refuge is a key national organisation working to end domestic violence towards women and children”
https://womensrefuge.org.nz/
Ad offered a useful statistic in the first comment of RL’s post:
“In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women:
http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/”
Without trying to politicise the issue further, how do you see a way forward if we are not willing to look at the issue in a gender neutral way? Do we just accept that a quarter of intimate partner violence-related deaths are caused by men not getting out of the relationship in time?
This has ended up being a lot more confrontational than I originally set out to be. Please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, or as trying to diminish the work that AreYouOk and Womens Refuge do. I am simply trying to point out that while RL may have made some unfortunate statements in his post, his story equally needed to be told and the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed.
Just to clarify a little further Bob. When I mention the topic of female on male abuse (which only some of which is physical) … I’m absolutely not trying to make any kind of Labour did it too argument. One form of abuse in no sense diminishes any other.
And it was my experience that the underlying causes of dv are shared by both genders, and this shapes my approach to the topic.
Nah. Deleted. Can’t be bothered.
“Weka, I agree that RL did politicise his post and use some unfortunate stereotypes, but the thing that did strike me about the whole thread was the fact that males in abusive relationships are just told to get out of the relationship, that is your only option. Imagine if that is the only advice we gave females in abusive relationships, it’s simply not that easy.”
Women do still get told that. In the past they got told that a lot. The reason they have more options today is because they organised.
There is no refuge available for men, retaliation is not and should never be an option and to my knowledge there are no support groups available to abused men.
The reason why women have services is because they organised. We didn’t get them handed to us on a plate. We got together under pretty difficult circumstances and created those services ourselves until others like the govt were willing to step in and help too. We are still hugely underfunded relative to many other aspects of NZ society, including ones that men not only benefit from but control the funding for.
In fact, NZ’s Domestic Violence support groups openly exclude and even blame men:
“Every year, Shine directly helps thousands of adult and child victims of domestic abuse to be safer, and we motivate hundreds of men that hurt their families to change their behaviour”
Yes, men need to be held accountable for when they hurt other people. What does that have to do with men who are victims?
Ad offered a useful statistic in the first comment of RL’s post:
“In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women:
http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/”
I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.
Without trying to politicise the issue further, how do you see a way forward if we are not willing to look at the issue in a gender neutral way?
We’re already making progress. This is one of Red’s basic premises that I reject (that we haven’t achieved anything useful).
Do we just accept that a quarter of intimate partner violence-related deaths are caused by men not getting out of the relationship in time?
ok, now I’m confused. Are you talking about men who abuse, or men who are being abused, or men who are both? Or what? It would help if you were clearer. I get that the situations are complex, and we need to take time to communicate clearly what we mean.
This has ended up being a lot more confrontational than I originally set out to be. Please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, or as trying to diminish the work that AreYouOk and Womens Refuge do. I am simply trying to point out that while RL may have made some unfortunate statements in his post, his story equally needed to be told and the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed.
I actually don’t care what Red wrote in his post, because I’ve seen it all before. It’s not just that he makes unfortunately statements, it’s that his politics are based on premises that many progressive people reject, and he is aligning himself with groups that are actively harming feminism, women and society.
And let’s be clear here. He also is promoting a false dichotomy between the existing situation as he perceives it ie that seeing domestic violence as gendered is harming men and inhibiting change, and the idea that we can only do wright by men by abandoning that. It comes across as feminism is wrong about this and we need to look at men’s needs by underming what they are doing. It’s just bullshit. And it’s a serious problem here on the left because I don’t see any feminists supporting what he says (so if you want to ask where we would go, trying figuring out how to move somewhere after you have just said that feminism is wrong).
Here’s what I would respect,
Domestic violence overwhemingly affects women and is perpetrated by men, so we need to look at how women can be protected and men can be expected to change.
In addition to that, there are men who are being harmed by women, and we need to look at why that is happening, and protect them and get those women to change too.
In addition to that, humans don’t fit neatly into binary gender or heterosexuality, so we need to pay attention to those cultures and what their needs are around violence.
All of the above is an inclusive model. Feminism will support men organising to address violence against them. They won’t support that if it’s being done by underming feminism.
(aside, because this apparently needs spelling out, “Feminism will…” is me shorthanding and generalising as a way of not writing a novel. Like every other progressive movement, there are many expressions of feminism and many ways that feminists are active and see themselves. That’s not a problem).
Edit, I’ll also say that there is no taboo from me on talking about domestic violence against men, nor from most feminists I know. There is appropriate time and place, but in general, most feminism wants men to be well too. I would welcome posts and discussion about this topic on ts. I won’t tolerate that being done in a regressive and repressive MRA-like way. There are other, constructive ways to approach this. Red isn’t the one to do it.
How sad,
Just for the record I strongly endorse redlogix’s approach and am shocked by weka’s refusal to consider it.
Disappointed
It’s important to look further behind the statistics quoted above (e.g. 24% of intimate partner violence-related (IPV) deaths were perpetrated by women against men), which tend to underestimate the magnitude and effect of domestic violence perpetrated against women.
From the report provided on the areyouok website, when examining the deaths according to domestic violence history within the relationship, 93% of all the IPV deaths involved female primary victims, and 96% involved male predominant aggressors (page 41 of the report).
Of the deaths perpetrated by women, 83% were classified “Female primary victim/suspected primary victim kills male predominant aggressor”, and 17% as “Female predominant aggressor kills male/female primary victim”.
So, in most cases women perpetrating IPV deaths were primary victims themselves.
Also, just want to say thank you to Weka for your insightful and considerate comments regarding IPV and all gender-related subjects! This is a hard area to read as a lurker, let alone comment on, but so important, so I really appreciate that you continue to fight the fight.
I’m hugely appreciative of what you’ve just posted re the report.
And thanks for the thanks and the reminder of what this is like to be reading. This is why I don’t want to respond to Reds content, it just keeps a politically damaging conversation going. Walking away now.
+1 Jcm.
I also appreciate the effort Weka has put into her comments, patiently trying to educate and explain in the face of some incredible levels of ignorance and misogyny.
I expect it from the right but find it very hard to accept it from the left. Unfortunately my idea of left seemingly does not match many of those commenting on the Standard who claim to be left but still have racist and sexist attitudes that they are not willing to confront.
All the personal abuse on this thread has come from who?
Not my idea of the left either.
Certainly not from Weka.
That’s the weka who says that RL’s judgement on this issue is untrustworthy and that the facts that RL provides aren’t worth following up because they’re probably dodgy?
I suppose RL could be a greater man and not take that shit personally. But it sounds pretty damn personal.
That’s not quite what I said though CV, so there is another example of misrepresenting my position. Here’s what I actually said,
I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.
I have given analysis over time of why I won’t engage with Red’s content on this topic. That included me saying that I don’t trust his sources because of my experience of arguing with him about this in the past. Other’s a free to follow up his links and make their own decisions.
You don’t like my critique of his politics, fair enough. But I haven’t been abusive. In fact I would day that this whole round of gender politics on ts has been remarkably free from abuse.
There is nothing wrong with me or anyone critiquing Red’s position. We do that on ts every day, why not in this situation?
@jcm
Every study done in this area has been controversial. And when you drill into the details what you find is that there are essentially three kinds of interaction:
1. One partner inflicts one way abuse on the other
2. One partner initiates, the other responds in self-defence
3. Both parties pretty much go at it hammer and tongs equally
This complicates how we view the situation a lot. When you add in verbal abuse and humiliation it gets even more complex.
which tend to underestimate the magnitude and effect of domestic violence perpetrated against women.
Again no-one wants to minimise the fact that male violence causes more harm. I’ll keep saying this over and over because pixels are free and I can type fast. Your point is redundant, I’ve already emphatically stated it many, many times and yet no-one seems capable of noticing this.
So, in most cases women perpetrating IPV deaths were primary victims themselves.
Yet interestingly when men perpetrate IPV deaths absolutely no defense of provocation or any justification is ever permitted.
But certainly where deaths are concerned, men are the by far the dominant perpetrators, no argument … yet crucially it is not 100%. Women too murder their partners. Same-sex partner violence is also thought to be rising.
This is proof that violence is not totally determined by the fact of gender alone. Abuse occurs on a spectrum, and while males unquestionably dominate the worst end of it, there is no evidence to suggest that women are exempt from their share of it either.
Therefore there must be an underlying root cause that is common to all human experience.
And that just proves – nothing. In fact, it’s moving the goal post from domestic violence to deaths caused by domestic violence. Different category, different measure.
Ummmm, if someone moved the goal posts ’twasnt me – I used the same evidence from the report quoted by Bob, so not sure where this critique comes from.
What I think it illustrates is that you need to have a more indepth knowledge of the figure you are quoting, otherwise you can do more harm than good.
You’ve got a smart guy, RL, who has personal experience with DV as a victim, and who is willing to engage with you and with other commentators on TS in an articulate way.
But you know what, fuck that, he’s clearly not trustworthy on this issue because he says things which confront the mental model you’ve built up around DV, and because you believe that your own basic premise is solid enough that you can dismiss him as you already have the answers that you want.
So his entire input and life experience gets *POOOF* invalidated in a single moment – and my input too even though I personally know how violent Kiwi women can be.
Instead, you’ll just create your own definition and own paradigm of what DV affecting males is all about, and the rest of us simply get to buy into it or not.
Well, good luck with that, because both RL and I know that while you, and some of the other women who are commenting on this issue have some of the most important answers and insights, you still only own a fraction of what is required.
The concept that men need or want the support of feminists or feminism in order to change themselves for the better, or that feminists or feminism has any validity in determining or defining what is good for men, or that feminists or feminism can describe what men are lacking and then act to help change the well being of men, is utterly unacceptable.
It is as ridiculous and outrageous as suggesting that women need the support, approval and contribution of men in order to change and improve who they are.
Poppycock. This the third time of writing? How can you be a man in this world and not be a feminist?
Also. No-one has berated or challenged reds account of his experience of DV. What is challenged is the deficiency of understanding he exhibits with reference to the underlying drivers of DV. I mean, fuck, he takes the most valuable frame of reference – patriarchy – and just flat out dismisses it. Having dismissed that whole analytical framework out of hand, he then turns to studies and figures, a lot of which are twisted (and discredited) stats produced by overtly misogynistic fucktards to back his assertion that females and males are on some kind of level playing field when it comes to violence. We ain’t!
And that, just in case your entertaining the idea, isn’t me hating on men or projecting any type of self loathing. But I do despise that set of social norms that have grown up and that can be said to reside with the concept of patriarchy. And I despise the way that culture impacts on men and women both directly and indirectly or via intermediaries.
I don’t pretend to know the numbers on this. But I’d be curious to know how many women who abuse their partners were themselves previously subjected to abuse. Because misdirected revenge that springs from events in previous relationships or situations is cause for using the framework of patriarchy to understand why some women are abusing their partners…it’s not a reason to throw the framework away on the grounds that it doesn’t seem to apply to the here and now of a given abusive situation.
Really?
Well if its such a valuable and powerful frame of reference, then let’s see the highly insightful and effective paths forward that this awesome analytical framework gives our towns and neighbourhoods about DV.
At least with a Marxian analytical framework, the workers are shown real ways out that they can do for themselves.
Its a long thread Bill you may have missed when I said this above at 4:11pm
The term ‘patriarchy’ while useful at one time has become another barrier. As many people have already said, in the bigger picture patriarchy harms men almost as much as it does women. It’s more about social hierarchy, gross inequality and unjust exploitation than it is about gender. It forms the basis of the greed based, unconstrained capitalism that oppresses virtually all of humanity in pretty much equal measure.
Again as I said, feminism has had a LOT of vital and interesting things to say about patriarchy. Really.
But when you read someone like Jared Diamond who neatly traces the origin of it back to the invention of agriculture, the need to defend territory, the need for disposable males as soldiers, the need to control female breeding to have plenty of replacements, the resulting intensification of hierarchy and inequality, economic models based on slavery and exploitation … it all looks more and more like class war than gender war.
Now of course historically feminism has a proud heritage of righting legal and structural inequality that was an inherent part of the slave/serf economies. But in a society where all women can vote, go to work in any job of their choosing, enter any relationship they want, and leave it at their choosing, enter into any legal contract, start any business they want, travel and live pretty much as they wish …. the idea this is a brutal repressive and literal patriarchy doesn’t quite live up to the label any more.
What instead feminism now confronts is male behaviour. And is now unhappy that men have all gotten with the program. What many men feel, but struggle to articulate is a sense that “what you are calling ‘patriarchy’ smells pretty much like the shit I have to put up with everyday myself”. As I said before; patriarchy harms most men almost as much as most women.
Now crucially this does NOT dismiss the experience of patriarchy as women experience it. But it does suggest a better way to reframe it so as both genders get it.
Jared Diamond – I’ve read some of his stuff – is in the same boat as any other person looking to the past and trying to figure it out. They are stuck within current frameworks of reference and so, in the end, can only tell stories. Now, some of those stories might seem more plausible than others, but all of them are chock full of projections from the here and now into an unknown and largely unknowable past.
Red, if you’re looking to pit an economic understanding against a gender understanding, then seriously, go and read this excellent post from a wee while back by ‘stargazer’.
http://thestandard.org.nz/intersections/
What a load of fucken bollocks.
When study after study shows the same thing then you pretty have to take it as a given. And, no, those studies have not been discredited.
You’re right Draco. I should, of course, have written “stats and figures”, not studies and figures.
Hi Bill – your comments above make a lot of sense. Pity the guys who are reading them cannot take them on board.
Patriachy does seem to me to be a valid framework to use in this discussion.
It is as ridiculous and outrageous as suggesting that women need the support, approval and contribution of men in order to change and improve who they are.
Yes. When the feminists demanded the right to define what was important to them, to frame gender issues entirely on their terms, they forgot that men might equally demand the same right as well.
Of course their response was ‘well you are all the bad guys so you don’t get that right’. And we said ‘well actually we AREN’T all the bad guys’
And the women reply “we never said that, we just want to hold all men accountable as a class for the actions of a few’. And so it goes.
Then the MRA types said ‘fuck you, we’re going to determine our own narrative anyway’. The women screamed ‘misogynists!’ and on it goes.
Oh well … I’ll finish here by repeating something I said above; that in the end the path through this shitstorm will only be found when both genders start trusting each other again. And then helping each other to be be the best we can.
I’ll put it this way. We all know that men cause more harm. It’s largely a fact of our greater strength and crap socialisation in an intrinsically violent society.
But tell a man that his greater strength is a gift, tell him it is his duty to use if safely, tell him it makes him a better man to be responsible for using this gift wisely … then you have a framework most men will respond to.
And then ask yourself, who is that most men will listen to most, that they will do almost anything to please, if not the women in their lives they mostly want nothing more than to love and cherish?
Yes. When the feminists demanded the right to define what was important to them, to frame gender issues entirely on their terms, they forgot that men might equally demand the same right as well.
Red. What’s with this ‘the feminists’? Do you really think that feminist thought and understanding is the exclusive preserve of women? I mean, my experience of patriarchy is substantially different to that of women, but it’s not separate.
Of course their response was ‘well you are all the bad guys so you don’t get that right’. And we said ‘well actually we AREN’T all the bad guys’
I only ever met one woman who called herself for being a feminist who hated men…I was the only man in a room of about a dozen feminists at the time. And you know what? The feminists in the room didn’t want a bar of it. (That was in a house the evening before a day of feminist workshops many years back in England…mostly anarcho feminists from memory, pretty light on the liberal feminist front and I only wound up being in that house by accident).
And the women reply “we never said that, we just want to hold all men accountable as a class for the actions of a few’. And so it goes.
I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others (with the one isolated exception I’ve mentioned above)
Then the MRA types said ‘fuck you, we’re going to determine our own narrative anyway’. The women screamed ‘misogynists!’ and on it goes.
So the MRA types basically justify their shit off the back of their pre-existing prejudice.
Oh well … I’ll finish here by repeating something I said above; that in the end the path through this shitstorm will only be found when both genders start trusting each other again. And then helping each other to be be the best we can.
Again. I’ve never (with that one exception) found distrust – in relation to what we’re discussing – to be any kind of an issue.
I’ll put it this way. We all know that men cause more harm. It’s largely a fact of our greater strength and crap socialisation in an intrinsically violent society.
If society is intrinsically violent then it follows that no configuration of humanity can be anything but violent – and that’s simply not true. there are reasons why this society is violent. But you’re apparently loathe to analyse it.
But tell a man that his greater strength is a gift, tell him it is his duty to use if safely, tell him it makes him a better man to be responsible for using this gift wisely … then you have a framework most men will respond to.
Hail the almighty? Really??
And then ask yourself, who is that most men will listen to most, that they will do almost anything to please, if not the women in their lives they mostly want nothing more than to love and cherish?
And they all lived happily ever after in a patriarchal wonderland. Fan-fucking-tastic.
Do you really think that feminist thought and understanding is the exclusive preserve of women?
It is according to many of the comments I’ve read here. But that isn’t an answer to what you quoted anyhow.
I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others
Try reading weka up above.
http://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-12052016/#comment-1173238
Last sentence. Maybe I misread it.
But you’re apparently loathe to analyse it.
See above @7:48pm. Acknowledge it’s only a very scratchy attempt, but loath? No.
Hail the almighty? Really??
And they all lived happily ever after in a patriarchal wonderland. Fantastic.
Again the overt sneering and personal abuse is coming from who?
Frankly what are you expecting from me when you behave like this?
I already read Weka’s comment earlier. You might have noted I asked her to clarify one small part – which she did. She was giving a rundown of MRA stuff….not a run down of men’s attitudes. Is that where you went off track?
Well, what kind of response do you expect to an appeal for supposed superiority be acknowledged, accepted as truth and encouraged/rewarded? I wasn’t sneering at you. I was being contemptuous of the idea you were peddling. Look. If you happen to have a partner who is consensually submissive in aspects of your relationship, then all power to you both. But you can’t put that expectation or that template ‘out there’ as though it should be a norm and not expect some ‘less than enthusiastic’ responses.
“I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others”
Try reading weka up above.
here’s what I said,
It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.
That means that men as a class are accountable for the privilges that their class is afforded. In the context of this conversation it also means that men as a class need to step up and change male violence, not because all individual men are responsible for the actions of other individual men, but because men are the ones that can change their own culture as a whole.
Nothing, I repeat nothing, in what I have said suggests that Bill is responsible for another general man’s violence. IMO he does have a responsibility to take action against male violence in general, and I see him doing that in this thread.
Likewise I will hold Pākehā as a class accountable for racism in NZ. Or the non-disabled accountable for the shit that disabled people have to go through just to live their lives. Not because non-disabled people are bad, but because they have power that disabled people don’t.
So, yet another example of your failure to even understand the basic arguments made by feminism, and to misrepresent my views. On and on it goes. Your views on feminism are so twisted from what feminists believe and you continue to assert that your views of feminism are more valid than those of feminists. It makes sense then that you insist that I don’t know what I mean elsewhere in the thread. There’s no way past that.
@weka
IMO he does have a responsibility to take action against male violence in general, and I see him doing that in this thread.
I’ve absolutely zero problem or argument when you frame it like that.
But still nothing said about women taking responsibility against female violence in general. Yes it’s less physically damaging and way less visible, but it emotionally it’s every bit as harmful.
Feminists have spent a lot of energy and got a LOT of oxygen demanding men take responsibility to change; yet the slightest hint from men that maybe women might want to examine their own camp too, gets viciously shouted down.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s patronising and condescending. All you do is tell me how ignorant and twisted I am, making the issue personal rather than adding to the conversation. You barely manage to omit the word misogynist. It’s typical of the bile feminist direct towards men and it’s taking you nowhere.
@Bill
Look. If you happen to have a partner who is consensually submissive in aspects of your relationship, then all power to you both.
Again the grotesque misrepresentation. It’s truly amazing what people will project. Actually my partner is a successful and capable business person in her own right and is naturally assertive and bossy when it suits her. She’s much better at organising people than I am, and has fine strong opinions of her own. It is why I love her.
But while you sneer, the fact remains, regardless of any imaginary templates you want to make up, almost no-one enters into an intimate relationship with a picture in their mind of hitting, kicking, beating or killing this person they love. No-one (apart from maybe the psychopaths) walk down the traditional marriage aisle in the hope that one day they can get to kick the shit out the person they are about to be joined with.
So when it does all end up in hospital, refuge or court surely it is worth asking ‘what went so badly wrong?’
In all this debate it is so easy to lose sight of this truth, that most people, most of the time are fundamentally good. And when they are not … it is more often the stuff of tragedy than malice.
That’s it from me. I’m sick of seeing my name on the sidebar for the time being and I’ve other things to get on with.
“the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed”.
Yes – I would agree Bill, but isn’t it time that men took up that issue for themselves – just as women in the past have taken up the issue of domestic violence and worked to bring it out into the open, and to provide safe shelters for those women and children it affects.
Edit – I see that Weka above answers this in more detail.
I didn’t write that quote you’re attributing to me. Anyway…
okay. scanned back through the comments. Bob wrote that.
jenny explainations of factionalism above, we ran out of levels for reply
Hi all, I would like to suggest that part of the tension in this discussion is that we have a head and a heart debating and in that, it can be hard to see common ground
I applaud your approach gsays and several decades ago i would have said the same.
In my experience those who set themselves up as saviours of the victim’s often gain a sense of personal entltlement and feel justified in using unethical means to get what they are convinced is owing to them, This manefests in dishonest and manipulative communication as was the case here. It is a form of violence and does create tension. In a domestic setting it is domestic violence. They themselves are convinced that because they are doing it for the victims is must be OK
Quite frankly I dont know how to get through to them. The only times i have observed a meaningful change from this behaviour is if they are by circumstance required to accept responsibility for some harm they have caused, but generally it can be blamed on the oppressors so it dosnt happen often. Thus are despots made from the best of intentions.
That bag being flaunted by Judith was on Sale at the Warehouse I think. $20.50
So what?
So you and her shouldn’t frequent the same shopping malls James.
James, if true it’s actually a big plus for Judith Collins. Surprising.
I thought you were taking the piss ianmac but you were being literal?
Just kidding Colonial Viper.
My photo under the heading “gullible.”
Its crocodile.
Ironic as she talks a croc of s…
Oh wow so good, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11637631 Raybon Kan “Meanwhile, in another romantic comedy, Fairfax and NZME seem to be dating. So one media firm was eyeing up another, yet the media were caught by surprise. What do we expect? The media were in a lock-up watching The Bachelor.”
Well I can skip most of this stuff. Same old, same old. The difference between the sexes and violence and bad behaviour etc. 105 comments!
Did anyone write about anything else on here? I haven’t time to look and see if there is any original thought or amusing satire.
I just read your recently suggested link about “commonism”. A very good read but I terribly missed one hugely important aspect or dimension, which seems to be left out of most socio-political discourse. Possibly the very last sentence hides a suggestion of a hint …
Incognito
Right I will have another look at that commonism piece and see what the dots you leave behind you refer to.
As to the quote above, yes to thinking about what we are fighting for (and it is a fight, not a skirmish against the powerful-money-materialism-crazed and their naive bunnies in the headlights, and is likely to be a fight to the death – of people elsewhere, or closer – our vulnerable towns and supply systems, our extended families, us, our known planet – which will become the place of the ants which I think have the life systems to survive in places).
But thinking who ‘we’ are. There isn’t time to think, argue and analyse that in depth. The ‘we’ have to be the people who will step forward and do something of value in building capacity, sustainable, friendly community and retaining as much kindness as possible, despite ever harsher conditions. Those who self-select to act, must seek out other people who can combine thinking, reflecting, comradeship and action and together work for worthy practical positive outcomes. The others are just, literally, time-wasters. In The Day of the Triffids, those who wake in the morning after the night-sky show, are blind and shocked and feel their way along the walls to the downstairs lobby hoping for help and guidance, and mill round in circles there.
That is what is happening here in the world right now, we can see but we can’t process intellectually what we see and so won’t take any steps to defray the disaster to come. What a future. Dire. And we are aboard the Titanic. Some survived from that – and one of them was in the company that built it. But it wasn’t his fault was it? The problem was over-confidence, hubris on everyones part, especially captain and crew. A very human failing. Perhaps that is why the human race is failing.
Thanks greywarshark.
I will certainly have to re-read it again as it was rather long & dense at such a late time at night.
I think you’re probably right about everything you wrote although I personally dislike using ‘military’ terminology. I prefer to see it as (part of) “the human struggle” (Darwinian) to figure out who we are, what is the purpose (meaning) of life, and all those other pesky little questions that won’t go away 😉
The only thing I’d argue about is the tension between acting (now) and thinking (later). IMO we’re destined to do (repeat) the same things (mistakes, or, in your words “mill round in circles”) if we rely on short-term or so-called fast thinking (à la Kahneman). The human condition requires holistic approaches, which also means that actingthinking have to be(come) complementary rather than separate steps in the process.
Popper made a similar argument, I believe, when he discussed (piecemeal) social engineering and planning & politics: small steps with feedback loops along the way and continuous adjustment. That said, I’m not sure that his methodology/philosophy is applicable to major social crises. He contrasted this with Utopian engineering, which he was less keen on, to say the least … Perhaps that’s more like the urgent action that you’re referring to?
Do we need good or better leaders, self-selecting activists and/or thinkers, or do we try something completely different and new?
From a liberal framework it dangerous to say that because men commit more severe family violence that we should have rules or campaigns that single them out. Because if you can do that how do you deal with the significant differences in statistics between cultural groups and socioeconomic levels?
And from a pragmatic framework we currently have a situation where male – female violence is basically unacceptable (most people will actively intervene, which is good) and female to male violence is largely acceptable (at least slaps and some punches – almost no one would intervene). This means a little effort to discourage F-M assaults could have a large effect while M-F assaults are the sort of thing that considerable social pressure has not been able to weed out.
And of course those that see violence are likely to be more violent so reducing this has other benefits.