NZ number one in the world – and it’s all bad news

388 comments on “NZ number one in the world – and it’s all bad news ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   27 October 2015 at 7:37 am

   “Over to you, men.”

   No. Over to the mothers who raise these ugly brutes.
   • b waghorn 1.1

     27 October 2015 at 7:41 am

     What about the fathers of them ,oh that’s right they probably left long ago.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2

     27 October 2015 at 7:45 am

     🙄

     This isn’t about your mother.
     • vto 1.2.1

       27 October 2015 at 7:50 am

       That’s exactly right
       • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 7:53 am

         If mothers are responsible for their sons’ violence, how is it that your mother isn’t responsible for your self-serving fantasy world?
         • vto 1.2.1.1.1

           27 October 2015 at 7:56 am

           you keep getting too many things wrong fulla
           • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.1.1

             27 October 2015 at 7:58 am

             Consider it a direct male intervention aimed at your nasty attitude.
             • Sabine …

               27 October 2015 at 8:02 am

               +1
               well done!
             • vto …

               27 October 2015 at 8:03 am

               pathetic

               can’t you detect who is responsible for these brutes?
               • miravox …

                 27 October 2015 at 8:09 am

                 “can’t you detect who is responsible for these brutes?”

                 The people they emulate and those who give positive reinforcement and excuses for the behaviour does it for me.
                 • vto …

                   27 October 2015 at 8:15 am

                   Agree
                   • miravox …

                     27 October 2015 at 10:44 am

                     And yet it’s mothers you target. As if males don’t have a role in the behaviours of their peers and family.

                     Even if you have personal knowledge of women who men emulate in their violence and who provide positive reinforcement for that behaviour it seems rather extreme to leave it there.
                   • vto …

                     27 October 2015 at 11:25 am

                     “And yet it’s mothers you target. As if males don’t have a role in the behaviours of their peers and family.”

                     Of course they do. I was merely highlighting the inanity of selecting just one group of people in society, as this post does.
                   • arkie …

                     27 October 2015 at 11:53 am

                     the inanity of selecting just one group of people in society, as this post does.

                     This post is about the extraordinarily high instances of DV perpetrated by men against their partners, how is it ‘inane’ to request that we collectively acknowledge and vocalise that this behaviour is unacceptable? Men aren’t being blamed or victimised by asking that men do more to decry NZs rates of DV. It is an opportunity for men who are serious about fixing this doing their part to call out the behaviour wherever and whenever they encounter it.
                   • vto …

                     27 October 2015 at 12:14 pm

                     Why are those people who have nothing to do with DV being told to do something about it solely on the basis of their gender?

                     Our responsibilities are equal
                   • tracey …

                     27 October 2015 at 12:24 pm

                     I suspect it is because ‘we” are all in this together and many women have been working for decades to support victims (including boys and men – but moslty children and women) and in the end men are largely influence more strongly by their male peers than by women?

                     Men (both who are and who are not perpetrators) are being asked to be PART of a solution. Again presumably because studies and observations indicate that how men talka bout owmen and violence influences in part those men who perpetuate the violence?
                   • arkie …

                     27 October 2015 at 12:26 pm

                     Why are those people who have nothing to do with DV being told to do something about it solely on the basis of their gender?

                     From the stuff article:

                     it’s women who are doing the bulk of the speaking out and when we do, in many cases, we’re immediately subjected to – you guessed it – threats of violence.

                     Why should women, who may have nothing to do with DV be left to do everything about it – and then be abused and threatened when they do – solely based on their gender?

                     It is our inaction as a country, our reluctance to call out unacceptable behaviour by friends and acquaintances, that is our collective shame and has resulted in these DV statistics.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 27 October 2015 at 8:11 am

                 I wouldn’t describe your opinions as brutish, Cowardly, self-serving, dishonest, certainly, but brutish? No.
               • arkie …

                 27 October 2015 at 10:22 am

                 Surely people are responsible for their own behaviour?
                 • Tracey …

                   27 October 2015 at 10:32 am

                   Life is rarely that black and white. Yes, people are responsible for their own actions but that doesn’t mean we don’t accept there are also external drivers tot heir actions.

                   Also we accept, within law (and common sense) that children are not developed enough to be treated as adults, emotionally, physiologically and mentally. Think frontal cortex and so forth.
                   • arkie …

                     27 October 2015 at 10:52 am

                     Yes, I understand that external drivers can mitigate responsibility but I am responding to vto’s assertion that men needn’t take responsibility and in fact, their behaviour is their mothers fault.
                   • Tracey …

                     27 October 2015 at 11:22 am

                     ahhhhh.
                   • vto …

                     27 October 2015 at 11:26 am

                     arkie http://thestandard.org.nz/nz-number-one-in-the-world-and-its-all-bad-news/#comment-1087309
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   27 October 2015 at 10:57 am

                   In societies with greater inequality, right wing personal responsibility still doesn’t exist, and even if it did, that wouldn’t account for the increased violence.
                   • arkie …

                     27 October 2015 at 11:14 am

                     I am by no means endorsing libertarian ‘personal responsibility’, merely questioning the desire to blame others for ones own behaviour. There may be mitigating factors but these only reduce responsibility, not negate it entirely. It is not an ‘or’ but an ‘and’.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     27 October 2015 at 11:32 am

                     Blame is useless. Even if we find out who’s responsible, that’s not a solution. In fact, it impedes solutions.
   • Tracey 1.3

     27 October 2015 at 10:41 am

     Over to all of us, cos we don’t live in isolation and this violence in homes (which are supposed to be sanctuares) keeps on giving long after the violence stops (or victims move out)…
   • infused 1.4

     27 October 2015 at 1:16 pm

     not that I like to agree with oab, but you’re stupid as they come.
   • vaughan little 1.5

     27 October 2015 at 4:50 pm

     most feminists don’t know how to communicate. Though one Laura Kipnis is engaging. I occasionally click on a feminist article but seldom last past the first two paragraphs due to some clanger or other. usually cos of how the word “men” is used.

     feminists damage issues they own, and domestic violence is sadly one example. we need more kelvin davises.
     • leah 1.5.1

       28 October 2015 at 10:43 am

       oh my god. how do you respond to this. all feminists suck that’s why we need a man to explain our issues for us? are you for real?
2. Paul 2

   27 October 2015 at 7:39 am

   David Cunliffe tried.
   He was vilified by the establishment, the media and the PM.
   That series of events showed how ingrained male prejudices are amongst a significant subset of the male population.
   The misogyny shown in the Veitch saga reveals a nasty underbelly in NZ, and there is a clear link with sport here.
   I’d much prefer to live in a country which is 100th in the world of domestic abuse and 100th in the world at rugby.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     27 October 2015 at 7:50 am

     In what sense is making a speech comparable to the intervention Rachel Stewart proposes?
     • weka 2.1.1

       27 October 2015 at 10:21 am

       A man speaking up about domestic violence is one of the things that Stewart names.

       So what would I have men do differently?

       First off they need to use seriously loud voices about the issue. They have seriously loud voices about rugby, or anything else they deem worthy. Why not this?

       They must speak up when other men make sexist and derogatory remarks about women in their presence. Because we all know that violence towards women stems from such casual misogyny. Don’t we?

       I’d also draw connections between the culture that enables domestic violence and the one that enables and applauds the kind of reactions that were used directly against Cunliffe post-speech. If we had a less macho parliament we’d have a parliament more effective at reducing the domestic violence in NZ.
       • Tracey 2.1.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 10:44 am

         I agree, the attack on Cunliffe is an aspect of why we continue to ride high on the statistics.

         It’s high time people feel as affronted, and moved to action, on behalf of all victims of DV as they did on Cunliffe’s comment to the Womens’ Refuge conference impugning their manhood.
         • weka 2.1.1.1.1

           27 October 2015 at 10:56 am

           The impugned manhood reaction, plus the dirty politics one. Both are serious blocks to solutions, and both are reflections of the culture and further engrain anti-solution attitudes in the culture.
   • savenz 2.2

     27 October 2015 at 8:24 am

     @Paul – yes Cunliffe tried but was attacked and repeatedly misquoted in the media.

     It is also the media that is part of the problem. They attack strong anti violence men and support violent men like Veitch and other sport’s rapists types.

     Also to those that think ‘it is a brown problem” think again! All research shows family violence is ACROSS the racial and social economic groups of men. It is neither a race or class problem. White men are more likely to get away with it such as Veitch. He is a perfect example of the attitude – “I’m the victim here, I should not be sanctioned for breaking my wives back in 4 places!”

     and that is why NZ is no 1 for family violence.

     Also betcha funding is cut for anger management groups AND woman’s refuge by this government. And we still have to find out what is happening in the Sabin case, a guy supported by the government.

     I agree, men have to take ownership of the problem and say to other Men ‘That is not right, you need to stop’.
     • Nessalt 2.2.1

       27 October 2015 at 10:22 am

       a mis quote is not when the media reports what you say and then leaves it for the public to make their mind up.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 10:35 am

         One way to construct a mis-quote is to truncate a longer statement so as to materially alter its meaning and/or intent.

         You can pretend that didn’t happen in this case, and Darwin said

         To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

         How do you like your new Creationist allies, Nessalt?
3. vto 3

   27 October 2015 at 7:48 am

   “Over to you, men.”

   Is there a more detailed breakdown for this? Is it more so in particular racial groups? Is it more so with Pacific Islanders, for example? Is it more so with particular religions? Is it more so with people of a particular age?

   Just piling them all together in a heap of “men” is poorly – may as well say “Over to you, everybody”
   • RedBaronCV 3.1

     27 October 2015 at 8:05 am

     There’s one one every street in this country and they are in every read every socio economic group. Do you think Veitch is the only better earning one? – nice distraction though
     • vto 3.1.1

       27 October 2015 at 8:09 am

       Oh right, it is equally spread, of course… because all cultures and societies have the same settings…

       right across the entire world even… there is the same level of domestic violence in every society in the world ….

       … hang on… even the heading of the post is at odds with your view there
       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 8:18 am

         Just as the facts are at odds with yours.
   • McFlock 3.2

     27 October 2015 at 12:31 pm

     ISTR that the NZ data has significant differences between ethnicities, but that deprivation index shows greater differences by far. But both pale into insignificance when looking at differences between gender.

     Yes, some organisations do good work targeting specific socioeconomic groups, but the overwhelming common factor (not “universal”, just vast majority) in serious domestic violence is whether the perpetrator has a penis.
4. One Anonymous Bloke 4

   27 October 2015 at 7:57 am

   I think Rachel Stewart’s advice is worth taking: male group intervention. I don’t like her suggestion that it involve even the threat of violence.

   The other drivers of violence must also be addressed. Yes, it’s the GINI again…
   • miravox 4.1

     27 October 2015 at 8:10 am

     +1
   • ropata 4.2

     27 October 2015 at 8:25 am

     Yep, there’s the “good lad” initiative in the UK that addresses lad culture. There are a lot of great positives about male identity and a few not so good things that need to be fixed. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/oct/21/in-defence-of-lad-culture-camaraderie-fun-and-friendships-video
   • JanM 4.3

     27 October 2015 at 8:26 am

     Yes, I do think it’s the deathly silence from men that has encouraged this awful situation.
     I think Rachel’s solution is a bit skewed, though. Posses of enraged relatives aren’t really anything new and to some extent merely promote ongoing violence. It’s men with the guts to speak up like David Cunliffe who will make the difference in the end – and yes he paid a high price, but so has everyone with the courage to raise their voice above the mob. I didn’t notice any groundswell of support of him at the time. Is it cowardice, or ignorance, or just a NIMBY blindness – doesn’t happen around me (that I can see, anyway), so not my problem
     • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1

       27 October 2015 at 8:36 am

       the deathly silence from men

       I think there’s value in public expressions of non-violence; that isn’t what’s being proposed though. Group intervention is a necessarily private affair: the kind of one-on-one conversations I try and engage mates in would be completely different if conducted in a fishbowl.
       • JanM 4.3.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 8:51 am

         I’m aware it’s not being proposed but I’m saying it’s what is needed. Not every abused woman has men in her life who can come to her rescue – in fact it’s quite common for her not to have – abusive men tend to be possessive and work to isolate their partners.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.1.1

           27 October 2015 at 9:01 am

           In which case the public rhetoric is even less likely to reach her than peer-group support. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that we need more men speaking up about it. We also need a more broad-based political approach to the issue: the Right is still denying the science: treating inequality as a political football.
           • JanM 4.3.1.1.1.1

             27 October 2015 at 9:37 am

             So, women without a gang of men behind them simply get thrown to the wolves, as happened to me? Only sisters,and an elderly father at the other end of NZ? That went well!
             Yes, we do need a broad-based political approach to the issue, but I’m sure you know as well as I do that the Right is populist,not innovative, so hell will freeze over waiting for them. Where are the courageous men willing to start this?
5. Tautoko Mangō Mata 5

   27 October 2015 at 8:31 am

   National Party and Modelling attitudes to DV.
   This WO comment was written in relation to an NZH article about veteran wicketkeeper, Peter McGlashan, who had been the national coordinator and an ambassador for Blow The Whistle On Violence, a nationwide campaign through which sports stars have encouraged families and communities to work together to eliminate domestic violence. McGlashan had been offered a job with the Glenn Family Foundation.

   MAYBE HE CAN HELP OUT THE NATIONAL PARTY?
   by Cameron Slater on July 22, 2012 at 6:14pm
   ᔥ NZ Herald

   “Perhaps he might like to assist the National party, since they just seem to think that the best approach to domestic violence is to sweep it all under the carpet and have senior politicians wax lyrical about the standing of Mr B:”

   And haven’t they shown more evidence of that since- (Malaysian diplomat, Ponytailgate, prominent New Zealander.)

   (Takes computer into shower)
6. RedLogix 6

   27 October 2015 at 8:32 am

   Then of course there is the other stat that NZ leads the OECD in – young male suicide. But that’s just young men killing themselves .. and who gives a fuck?

   I’m with vto on this. NZ has become a mean, alienating little shit-hole where too many people feel depressed, anxious, lonely, and angry. We don’t talk to our neighbours, we don’t talk to our workmates, we don’t talk about what we really feel or say what is important to us anymore.

   Too many men have no real friends. Too many women have friends who don’t behave like friends.

   Too many men are so stripped of self-respect and agency – the only tool left to them are their fists. Or guns, or car, or drugs – or anything they can turn on either their partners or themselves.

   Too many women are so stripped of self-respect and agency – the only tools left to them are manipulation, emotional abuse, lies, gossip and bullying. And too many die at their own hands as well.

   Male despair and violence leaves bruises, broken bones and smashed bodies. Female violence leaves invisible scars and wounds. Yes they are different in nature and comparisons are invidious.

   But the common factor is the violence. The violence, physical, emotional and economic that is endemic in our society from top to bottom. Yes some people lie at intense ‘intersections’ of it … but the fact remains we are all immersed in it all the time. It is a violence that pitches us into race, gender and culture wars breeding distrust and divisiveness. We’ve been fighting these culture wars as long as I can remember, and they only continue to rage. In the meantime the rich keep getting richer and nothing else changes.

   You want men to speak up about this? Fine … we will, it is long overdue. But you have to be prepared to listen to what we really want to say.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

     27 October 2015 at 8:41 am

     There are some signs of progress on that front.
   • ropata 6.2

     27 October 2015 at 8:51 am

     Have you heard the story about the adolescent male elephants who were running around their territory bullying the other animals and smashing up trees for fun? Then a big bull elephant showed up, cuffed them round the ears and showed them how to act like mature males and to be a part of the herd.

     There is a cultural phenomenon here and there are a lot of problems in society, but that’s still no excuse, men need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.

     There is also a lot of love and kindness and small things that go unnoticed. Personally I try and make the world better by showing patience and grace to people not by fighting and clawing.
     • vto 6.2.1

       27 October 2015 at 8:59 am

       “men need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.”

       Of course people need to take responsibility for their own actions, but I think you have made the classic mistake of suggesting that all men are responsible.

       This fundamental mistake leads to men reacting against the good cause.

       If I might fify… “the people responsible need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions?”… and yes, that would include those people with bad attitudes who encourage poor behaviour towards women.

       It does not include all men. It includes plenty women too.
       • marty mars 6.2.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 10:54 am

         “men need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions.”

         there is no ambiguity in that statement

         take responsibility for your OWN actions and also help other men deal with their OWN actions.

         you are on your all men hobby horse and it is not helping

         What can YOU do about YOUR actions vto? and what can YOU do about other mens actions vto?
         • vto 6.2.1.1.1

           27 October 2015 at 11:34 am

           Yes I am on the hobby horse of “all men blah blah”, but that is how the post is framed…

           But your point gets closer to the point – namely that it is about what each person can do about THEIR actions. About what THEY can do about OTHER peoples actions too. You are correct. My point, in relation to the issue, is that those actions of mine, yours, other people, have no link to what gender they are… we ALL have that responsibility in equal doses.
           • marty mars 6.2.1.1.1.1

             27 October 2015 at 12:28 pm

             “have no link to what gender they are”

             This is where the hobby horse gets in the way.

             If men generally perpetuate violence then what men have to say to other men is important and specifically related to the issue at hand. And it is more than okay if women ask men to talk to, and stop, other men perpetuating violence.
     • RedLogix 6.2.2

       27 October 2015 at 9:07 am

       @ropata

       Dogs will do the same thing too. I’ve seen a couple of remarkable examples in my life.

       But that’s the point vto is making in his own way. Too many people, men and women, growing up in a world where the alpha dogs and bull elephants have gone rogue themselves.
   • JanM 6.3

     27 October 2015 at 8:54 am

     Give it a go – what have you got to lose?
   • vto 6.4

     27 October 2015 at 9:05 am

     That is a good description of the circumstances from which this problem springs. I posted a while ago about some thoughts on the standards and drivers of our society today, as experienced recently. http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20102015/#comment-1084502

     I think the same drivers are in place here, which when combined with existing / historic standards around gender differences among certain of our cultures have led to an intensified result, namely more domestic violence.
   • Tautoko Mangō Mata 6.5

     27 October 2015 at 9:16 am

     Well said, RedLogix.
   • Olwyn 6.6

     27 October 2015 at 9:22 am

     Well said, RedLogix. One thing I am fairly sure of is that we cannot get from where we are to a more convivial place through an oxymoronic “war against violence.” We need to get over the idea that “doing something” about a problem always equates to punishing someone and never forgiving them.

     These animals you and Ropata speak of pull the young into line in relation to some idea of “how to be” – once the young animal grasps this he is considered to be “in line”. This is important, because without a shared standard the strong simply dominate the weak under various guises. Someone who has left this country told me that in his eyes NZ was becoming like a litter of puppies, with everyone nipping at each other, trying to avoid ending up the runt. This is the attitude we need to get away from.
     • Ross 6.6.1

       27 October 2015 at 11:13 am

       “We need to get over the idea that ‘doing something’ about a problem always equates to punishing someone and never forgiving them.”

       I agree absolutely. That sentiment applies to the recent debate about Tony Veitch. Many seemed quite happy to criticise and abuse him, probably thinking they were doing something. In fact, they were not making any useful contribution whatsoever.
       • RedLogix 6.6.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 11:55 am

         Exactly. More shame and more abuse rarely solves same.
   • weka 6.7

     27 October 2015 at 10:49 am

     “You want men to speak up about this? Fine … we will, it is long overdue. But you have to be prepared to listen to what we really want to say.”

     Ok, fair enough. However two things. One is that not all men’s voices are welcome in conversations about DV, that’s the point about Stewart’s article (Veitch). The other is that a post and thread about DV might not be the best place to push a political view that violence trumps identity. I don’t have too much of a problem with this being presented as an idea, but I do have a problem with it being presented in a thread on DV as if men are being marginalised or ignored.

     Male youth suicide is taken seriously in this country and has been well recognised for a long time as being a huge problem for NZ. Put up a post on this, I bet there would be some very interesting discussion about the politics involved and why despite the recognition not enough is being done. I’d be interested in hearing men’s voices on what the issues are specifically for them and what they see the solutions are. I just think trying to discuss that here comes across as men yet again trying to use women’s issues to further their own ends. It doesn’t work.
     • Lara 6.7.1

       27 October 2015 at 2:09 pm

       Thank you so much for that comment Weka.
7. Rosemary McDonald 7

   27 October 2015 at 8:52 am

   A pity that this latest discussion about domestic violence has been precipitated by yet another celebrity’s appalling outburst.

   In the meantime thousands of ordinary NZ women wait terrified for the next blow from their man.

   And their children live in a state of anxiety for the next time that raised voices signal its time to hide under the bed.

   Despite public awareness campaigns and innovative programs, nothing has changed.

   We appear to be a nation of arguers. Jeeze…even this discussion begins with an inflammatory statement by one person with others feeling morally obliged to leap on board and tell them their wrong.

   No, Rachael, I wouldn’t condone a posse….even if it does capitalise on using the same method of communication…ie,,,violence understands violence.

   We need to teach people to speak a different language.

   In the meantime…we need to ensure that women and children at risk are well supported…really well supported….not just bed and board.

   We also need to value children and mothers more. We don’t in NZ.

   Children and mothers are considered second class non -earning burdens on society….instead of an investment for the future.

   Kiwis abuse alcohol.

   I bet the cops can give a swag of stats on how many reported incidents of domestic violence involve alcohol or drugs.

   We need to look at that too.

   We also need to look at why so many people are so angry and frustrated.

   If it is down to how bloody hard it is to keep up with day to day living….then open your eyes angry person… and understand there is a shitload of others in exactly the same boat.

   And yes…this is just my opinion. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me.

   I do expect other commentators to leap in and let me know in no uncertain terms what a crock of shit I’m speaking. How I don’t get the deeper political narrative here….the usual antagonism that flares when really important topics are raised.

   Maybe we should think about that too…
   • JanM 7.1

     27 October 2015 at 9:00 am

     Some really good points in your comment – I especially like your last one. I get really annoyed sometimes when there are important points being discussed and it all gets derailed by a battle of the egos
   • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2

     27 October 2015 at 9:51 am

     the cops can give a swag of stats on how many reported incidents of domestic violence involve alcohol or drugs.

     We need to look at that too.

     Broadly speaking, mental health issues (like alcohol and drug abuse) are also closely linked to inequality.
     • Rosemary McDonald 7.2.1

       27 October 2015 at 10:03 am

       That’s very broadly speaking…..

       alcohol and drug abuse, and ensuing, violence are not the exclusive province of those battling at the bottom of the ladder.

       ditto with mental health issues.

       and yes..I’m separating the two…

       because there’s a chicken and egg discussion could be had around that.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 10:14 am

         Ah, I need to clear up a misunderstanding: the linkage is to the level of inequality in society, not to socio-economic status. You’re quite right – mental health issues affect all strata of society: greater inequality leads to greater problems across the board.

         Please also note the distinction between inequality and poverty: it’s the GINI, not the GDP, that counts.
   • Bill 7.3

     27 October 2015 at 10:05 am

     No, Rachael, I wouldn’t condone a posse….even if it does capitalise on using the same method of communication…

     Yup. The vigilante angle is … no.

     We also need to look at why so many people are so angry and frustrated

     Hmm. I’ll have a punt 😉

     A thousand and one reasons for that I guess. Some anger and frustration is likely the disturbance caused by ripples from various very personal pasts. But I’d venture that a majority of it all is initially caused by and then sustained and nourished by our current social and economic arrangements.

     This leads back to the assertion that behaviour within any given environment is normal for that environment. Before anyone suggests that lets any and everyone claim innocence and victim-hood, it doesn’t. Environment is (how to say this?) all of our biological, psychological and physical world. And all of that makes for the building block of class and race and sexism.

     Most people ‘get’ the intersectionality or mutually reinforcing problems of class and gender and race – ie, take out one and it will re-emerge in some form again because of the on-going effects of the other two.

     If violence results from environmental factors that are integral to sexism, racism, class etc, then what’s the framework those things hang from? And why don’t we dismantle it, demolish it or simply abandon it?

     Could it be that enough people are convinced of some ultimate goodness that can emerge from progress within that framework – the liberal myth of linear progress? And does that damn us to tinkering around the edges?
   • Foreign waka 7.4

     27 October 2015 at 9:25 pm

     Well said, really appreciated after all these self serving comments here. When I read from earlier comments that everyone has to take responsibility, eluding to a kind of “shared responsibility of the victim” that in many cases is a small child… it makes my stomach churn. Every case is one to many and as long as we accept alcohol and drugs in such unabated use nothing will change.
8. Ron 8

   27 October 2015 at 9:00 am

   It seems to me that the subject of violence against anyone is a problem that we need to address and it may well need looking at the media as a whole, and also a look at education. Schools see more of young people than any other single institution and might well be in the best place to lay down boundaries etc.
   Of course as long as we praise sports that rely on violence might make it difficult to effect change without looking at the whole sports culture.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1

     27 October 2015 at 9:06 am

     There is no – zero – correlation – let alone causation, between education and violence. It’s past time to stop blaming teachers and do something that works instead.
     • Ron 8.1.1

       27 October 2015 at 11:16 am

       Sorry maybe I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the violence that seems tolerated in so many schools not only in sports but in the class and playground. Teachers are in a position to see and stop this early in children’s school progress.
       Violence/bullying should not be tolerated in any school, sport or workplace. If we can stop it in schools it might well be that it will show up as a reduction in other areas of society. I cannot think of any other place that children attend in great numbers and that is more than capable of making changes to the way children behave that would have good effects downstream.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1

         27 October 2015 at 11:23 am

         Why don’t we try addressing the well-established causes of the problem before embarking on policy based on reckons?

         As for the schools that tolerate violence and bullying, [citation needed]
         • Ron 8.1.1.1.1

           27 October 2015 at 3:24 pm

           Matter of semantics but if we keep seeing violence in schools then where are the programs to stop it. Most of the stories below are older children (not all) but they possibly could have been stopped if someone had bothered when they were in early school years. Can you name any primary school in NZ that has an active program to stop bullying and violence. I would expect such a school to at least to be familiar with the UNESCO document http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001841/184162e.pdf
           but I have not seen any evidence of this in schools.
           These references below are just a quick list taken at random from papers but maybe public are not aware of how serious the problem is. Incidentally it has nothing to do with over worked teachers as you stated earlier. Any teacher that does not want to work with programs to stop violence should not be a teacher
           The preamble to the Unesco document says this about what a teacher is

           “Transmitting knowledge is only one part of what teachers do. They also
           make an essential contribution to the emotional and cognitive development
           of children, and play a central role in social development and change.
           Although some students may unfortunately experience violence in their
           homes, teachers can provide them with alternative ways of being by
           modelling constructive, non-violent behaviour and by fostering empathy
           and peaceful conflict resolution skills.”

           http://e2nz.org/tag/school-violence/page/3/
           http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/6709239/The-secret-story-of-violence-in-schools
           http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/281428/schools-'not-resourced-for-violent-kids‘

           As for the schools that tolerate violence and bullying, [citation needed]
           • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.1.1

             27 October 2015 at 4:15 pm

             I missed the part in the story where it mentioned the schools’ “tolerance” – yes they’re under-resourced to deal with the inevitable fact that society doesn’t stop at the school gates, and I note that you aren’t asking why dairy owners or rugby clubs are “tolerant” of violence.

             Yes I can name at least one from personal experience. Not only that, but extant research makes specific reference to existing primary school strategies.

             I can see no reason to base policy on reckons when there are facts and proven strategies at our disposal.
             • Ron …

               28 October 2015 at 10:31 am

               I am not so sure they are under resourced either it is more a case of not wanting to as one of the quoted articles stated.
               As for Tolerance what do you call it when a workplace does not have firm practices for dealing with workplace bullying sexism or whatever. Well why would you not expect every school in the country to have absolutely firm polices about such things and an active program, to ensure their children do not leave the school without a clear understanding that such behavior is wrong. I quoted from the Unesco document because we are a part of that organisation. The preamble I quoted makes it clear that school teachers are not just there to impart knowledge but to a part of the children’s development. I cannot imagine why you would disagree with those statements. Maybe you are not in agreement with that or failing that you have some connection with the teaching system. I would suggest if you have contact with any teacher/school in the future ask them about the UNESCo document and see whether they have a copy widely available in their school and have polices as outlined in the document.
               If not why not?
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 28 October 2015 at 10:46 am

                 What is your assertion that schools have no anti-violence programs based on? It looks like hot air.

                 Shall do your homework for you by linking to MoE resources? Or the Police “Keeping ourselves safe” program? Or the school anti-violence toolkit?

                 How about the education review office’s Safe Schools material?

                 Please attempt a fact-based response.
                 • Ron …

                   28 October 2015 at 9:12 pm

                   I wonder if you have children attending a school or are involved with any school (H&S committee or board. Of course if you are a teacher maybe that would be a bit pointless answering.
                   Anyway I see little point in continuing the discussion as you are firmly convinced that all is lovely in the school system so from your point of view there is nothing to worry about. If I seem to be coming on too strong I can say that one of the people (teacher) involved in one of those stories is my daughter so yes I could be biased.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     28 October 2015 at 9:20 pm

                     😆

                     You asserted, falsely, that schools have no programs in place to deal with violence. Getting all bent out of shape because you failed to check your facts just compounds the error.

                     As I said, the level of violence in schools reflects that in society. Do I need to get you a dictionary so you can learn the difference between that and “all is lovely”?

                     Dumping more work onto teachers isn’t a solution.
         • Grindlebottom 8.1.1.1.2

           27 October 2015 at 4:00 pm

           Some info on bullying. Still a problem in our schools.

           A problem with bullying at schools (or anywhere really) is that even if you’re not being bullied yourself, you’re aware of it & its intimidatory effects extend well beyond the immediate victim.

           http://new.censusatschool.org.nz/2015/06/12/verbal-abuse/

           http://www.kivaprogram.net/nz/news/new-zealand-bullying-statistics

           http://nobullying.com/bullying-in-new-zealand/

           https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/5714/3226/0531/MOEBullyingGuide2015Web.pdf
           • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.2.1

             27 October 2015 at 4:35 pm

             To be clear, I expect that the level of violence in schools reflects that in society.
     • Whispering Kate 8.1.2

       27 October 2015 at 7:36 pm

       You are correct there OAB, ever since human history began there have been bullies, people who want to smack people around because they can get away with it. Back in the early 1950’s I was bullied at school because I wore specs, 3 boys tormented me on the way home from school relentlessly. A dear bachelor great uncle, on my tearfully telling him what was going on, told me to bunch up my little fist and smack the first one right on the nose next time it happened. I did this next time the bullies shoved me up against a fence and terrorised me. He ran home howling like a banshee with blood running down his face. It never happened again. I am not advising that this is the way to stand up to bullies but its a darned fact, bullies only do what they do because we let them get away with it. My heart goes out to each and every one who lives in fear with a tyrant of a bully who targets them. Leave the teacher’s alone I say, their work is difficult enough as it is.

       Its not helping that we have a low-wage economy, parents have to work two jobs to keep their heads above the water. We live under stress with heavy traffic holding us up, bosses who are bullies themselves, its just endless. We are not a fulfilled nation, we live with anxiety and never knowing if our jobs will be there tomorrow. We do not share any more. As an adult I did tertiary study and the other adults working with me came to my home and we shared our knowledge to help each other along and better our marks , my high school 7th former child looked on horrified – for her it was every man for himself , so that she could gain better marks than her contemporaries for a placement at uni. We are losing our soul and its no wonder there is markedly more violence in society. Many men cannot cope with successful women and lots of women are very successful today, so white collar violence occurs as much as trades/unskilled violence occurs. Many years ago “I knew a woman who knew a woman” who had left her husband, a successful medical specialist because he smacked her around.

       Give people a good living wage, give them a job that they can rely on so they can come home with a decent wage packet. Its in a man’s DNA to be the major breadwinner and no societal change will alter that. Give us back the self respect we used to have, I know it wasn’t perfect 40 years ago but sure as hell it was far better than this. We will always have bullies but if we take away the fuel that makes them shitty (our crappy NZ as it is today) and wanting to hit out, may be we can nullify them and their actions better, anyway I know my tiny fist punching the Std 3 boy worked a treat.
   • Rosemary McDonald 8.2

     27 October 2015 at 9:52 am

     If domestic violence is intergenerational, and the current generation are perpetuating the violence, then schools may be the only viable venue for a counter to this.

     Sure as eggs, the media…in all its forms…is not going to help.

     I wonder how schools could help here?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1

       27 October 2015 at 9:57 am

       The best thing they could do is to reject any attempt to load more duties onto the back of an under-resourced sector. Then, they could scrap the useless notional standards, and let teachers get on with providing education.

       If that isn’t enough, perhaps they could teach kids that economic problems like inequality are the responsibility of Parliament, though it’s we who have to pick up the pieces.
     • vto 8.2.2

       27 October 2015 at 10:07 am

       “I wonder how schools could help here?”

       I’m with oab on the inequality thing being largely responsible for many of our society’s ills, including to a large extent the issue at hand.

       One way to attend to inequality and how it has arisen I think would be to make the monetary system and its operation a compulsory component of the curriculum.

       Pretty much everybody has absolutely zero understanding of how the money system works (even some very wealthy self-made people I know don’t even know how money is created), yet it is defines pretty much everything when it comes to inequality / distribution of society’s resources and wealth. It is the foundation stone.

       Once society has this understanding I think you would find the structures would come under pressure to change. Why do you think it has never been taught?

       That may seem a very specific answer but that is it. Imo.
9. esoteric pineapples 9

   27 October 2015 at 9:01 am

   I hope we don’t see John Key being a hypocrite by wearing a white ribbon this November. David Cunliffe stood up as a man and spoke against male violence against woman which is what White Ribbon is about and John Key used that to score political points.

   Meanwhile, he’s harrassing a waitress and when finally getting the message to back off says it was all a bit of harmless fun, not having the slightest concept that if you multiple his harrassment with every other man who went in the cafe doing the same thing she would would be harrassed the whole day long.

   He really doesn’t understand White Ribbon at all.
   • Mrs Brillo 9.1

     27 October 2015 at 12:23 pm

     +1
     • Grindlebottom 9.1.1

       27 October 2015 at 4:05 pm

       Good point well made pineapples.
10. BM 10

    27 October 2015 at 9:03 am

    Of the 2,273 women in 2011/12 who accessed a safe house service 43 percent were European/pakeha; 47 percent were Māori and six percent were Pasifika (Source: National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges annual reports, published in NZFVC Data Summary: Violence Against Women 2013).

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/international-human-rights-instruments/international-human-rights-instruments-1/convention-against-torture/united-nations-convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrding-treatment-or-punishment-new-zealand-periodic-report-6/article-2/4-violence-against-women
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      27 October 2015 at 9:10 am

      As I said, treating the issue as a political football – in this case with a side-order of racial profiling.
      • vto 10.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 9:14 am

        as opposed to gender profiling
      • BM 10.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 9:17 am

        According to these statistics Maori account for roughly 50% of domestic violence, yet only make up 16% of the population.

        Until Maori Men learn to work issues through without resorting to using their fists there’s always going to be a major problem with domestic violence in NZ.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.1

          27 October 2015 at 9:25 am

          1. Your racist lens is useless.
          2. Correlation is not causation, so your logic is broken too.

          Paging Drs. Hodson & Busseri.
        • miravox 10.1.2.2

          27 October 2015 at 10:52 am

          “Until Maori Men learn to work issues through without resorting to using their fists there’s always going to be a major problem with domestic violence in NZ”

          Riiight…. your figures read that Maori don’t account for roughly 50 percent of [reported?] domestic violence. So these non-Maori [men?] get a free ride to continue whatever violence they do because domestic violence would no longer be a major problem in NZ. Makes perfect sense /sarc
        • Tracey 10.1.2.3

          27 October 2015 at 11:54 am

          Hmmmm do all Maori women have Maori partners?
        • McGrath 10.1.2.4

          27 October 2015 at 1:00 pm

          When you have 16% of the population involved in close to 50% of DV, you need to focus on that group. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with common sense.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.4.1

            27 October 2015 at 1:37 pm

            Does your “common” “sense” usually get confused between correlation and causation? Is it evidence that right wingers really are stupid or just a wild coincidence?
        • McGrath 10.1.2.5

          27 October 2015 at 1:11 pm

          If 16% of the population are involved in close to 50% of DV, you focus on that group. It’s not racism, its common sense.
        • mpledger 10.1.2.6

          27 October 2015 at 1:14 pm

          The justice data is skewed. Lack of resouces plays a large part in who goes to refuges and who gets reported to the police.

          A man who can pay his victim to remain silent (like Veitch tried on) and a couple who lived in a mansion where their neighbours can’t hear the blows and screams aren’t going to come to the notice of the police.

          Go ask a GP whether DV is tied to ethnicity – they are the ones who treat all the hidden injuries.
    • savenz 10.2

      27 October 2015 at 9:15 am

      +1 -Great to clear up that myth straight away!
11. vto 11

    27 October 2015 at 9:13 am

    When we are a bunch of individuals on a programme of self-interest, then how on earth are we going to coalesce into a useful group to fight the good causes?

    Answer: we aint.

    United we stand and divided we fall…

    Who on earth suggested that individualism and self-interest would be good for such a social species?

    Eh?
12. Ross 12

    27 October 2015 at 9:21 am

    “They must speak up when other men make sexist and derogatory remarks about women in their presence. Because we all know that violence towards women stems from such casual misogyny. ”

    I assume Rachel doesn’t watch 7 Days because they make fun of women (and men) all the time. Maybe each panellist is a misogynist at heart and violence is not too far away. Do we really think that, Rachel?

    As for the Tony Veitch “saga”, I seem to recall there was abuse directed at him for merely commenting on a game of rugby. Rachel might have said that such behaviour is unacceptable.

    If Rachel Stewart is going to be even handed she could and should have mentioned that MEN are also the victims of domestic abuse.
    • savenz 12.1

      27 October 2015 at 10:06 am

      @Ross,

      “If Rachel Stewart is going to be even handed she could and should have mentioned that MEN are also the victims of domestic abuse.’

      sign…men can get breast cancer too, but they don’t always run about wrecking pink ribbon day complaining about men being victims of breast cancer.

      Unfortunately this chestnut above always comes out with our NO 1 family violence record.. OHHHH poor men they get abused by woman too, they are the victims! Lets not concentrate on men being bad! Woman can be abusers!

      yep but the men are not filling up the hospital’s stupid!

      The police charge a woman deflecting a blow as being violent too. They both get charged.

      The reality is many men in this country (and women) do not want to admit there is a problem with male family violence.
      • Ross 12.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 11:26 am

        savenz

        The “chestnut” doesn’t always come out because some people realise that domestic violence can and does affect both males and females.
        • savenz 12.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 12:33 pm

          Ross everytime there is debate about family violence that is the men’s way of deflecting the problem. By saying woman do it too.

          If woman are beating up their husbands why are the men not in hospital like all the woman?

          You just don’t see abusing woman killing their kids and husbands in the same way that violent men do.

          The reality is violent men use the excuse that woman hit them too to justify their behaviour.

          The proof will be in court statistics, hospital records, and murders.

          If there is one violent woman and 99 violent men out there where do you think the problem and hence the solution should lie?
        • Lara 12.1.1.2

          27 October 2015 at 2:21 pm

          Destroy The Joint (an Australian group) is Counting Dead Women in Australia.

          And so I thought I’d Count Dead Women in New Zealand… and while I was at it I’d Count Dead Men too. So I couldn’t be accused of sexism. Because whenever women focus on the violence done to women by men inevitably we are accused of sexism by a bunch of men.

          The theory is simple. Dead bodies are generally rather hard to hide. They tend to get found eventually, usually quite quickly. And unlike a stolen car the police tend to do some investigating over a dead body and quite often they have an idea who killed the person and they make an arrest.

          So Counting Dead bodies gives us an insight into the end of the line results of violence. Not much more terminal than being dead.

          I counted up until July this year.

          Up to July this year I counted 6 dead women, every single one killed by a man. Every. One.

          I counted 12 dead men. Nine killed by other men, three by women.

          So no. Women are NOT as violent as men. The dead bodies don’t lie.

          I stopped counting because it’s just too depressing. And if I was to do it publicly (as I originally intended) I expect my life would be turned upside down by misogynists doxing me, harassing me and threatening me. It’s just not worth it.
13. Ross 13

    27 October 2015 at 9:25 am

    “A 30-year-long study beginning in 1977 by Professor David Fergusson, which sampled 1000 people in Christchurch, found levels of victimisation and perpetration of abuse were similar for both men and women.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8897510/Embarrassment-barrier-for-abused-men

    How odd that victimisation by women against men didn’t get a mention by Rachel Stewart. Actually it did!

    “it’s just not acceptable to trot out the tired old line that women hit men too. It’s a fact that men physically hurt women many times more than the reverse, and implying anything else is just another form of abuse towards us.”
    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1

      27 October 2015 at 9:33 am

      What I find odd is that with the answers staring you in the face, you fixate on this aspect of the question to the exclusion of all else.
      • Ross 13.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 9:36 am

        Fixate? I wouldn’t say that pointing out the sexist nature of Stewart’s rant is fixating on it. I do find her comments deeply ironic, however.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 9:44 am

          I can imagine the conversation:

          “Where were you when we finally addressed the domestic violence problem, Grandpa?”

          “I made sure that everyone blamed women too.”

          Such a contribution might go unnoticed.
        • Tracey 13.1.1.2

          27 October 2015 at 10:59 am

          Cool, you focus on the irony. I am sure that will assist in the reduction of vioelnce in homes in NZ.
          • Ross 13.1.1.2.1

            27 October 2015 at 11:28 am

            I’m sure your sarcasm will assist in the reduction of violence in homes in NZ.
            • Tracey 13.1.1.2.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 11:37 am

              Not sarcasm Ross. I meant it as factual statement. Focussing on why someone who is shining a light onto the hereto unresolved BIG problem of domestic violence, needs to be critiqued in terms of her not focussing as much on adult male victims as you like, to my knowledge does not reduce violence in society.

              And yes, I do not just write a comment on a blog about this, I am active in trying to bring about solutions, mainly for men.
    • savenz 13.2

      27 October 2015 at 10:11 am

      Wow study of 1000 people in Christchurch by one person, convincing stuff…NOT! I

      You should work for the Natz on their pro fizzy drinks campaign run by Dr Coleman.
    • weka 13.3

      27 October 2015 at 11:22 am

      Give us an analysis of the validity of the study and then you might be able to use it in this debate.
      • Ross 13.3.1

        27 October 2015 at 11:36 am

        In 2006, Professor Fergusson criticised the Families Commission for focusing exclusively on male violence:

        “It is my frank view the commission’s stance on domestic violence is not being guided by a dispassionate and balanced consideration of the evidence.

        “Rather, it is being guided by an ideologically driven model that assumes on a priori grounds that domestic violence is a male problem and that female-initiated domestic violence does not exist or is so trivial that it can be ignored in the commission’s policy focus.”

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410452

        So, Fergusson does talk about the evidence. Of course, there will be those who don’t like the evidence and will, as Fergusson suggests, argue purely on ideological grounds.
        • Tracey 13.3.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 11:43 am

          “Ms Balakrishnan said both studies used a wide definition of “violence”.

          “Most people would consider it family violence where there is physical violence, where there is fear, where you are afraid for your safety,” she said.

          She pointed to a national Justice Ministry survey of 5300 households in 2001 which found that 21.2 per cent of women, but only 14.4 per cent of men, said they had ever had a partner who “used force or violence on you, such as deliberately hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved you, or deliberately hit you with something, in a way that could have hurt you”.

          Police statistics also show that men dominate the worst cases of family violence, including 31 out of 35 family homicides last year.”

          So the studies now need to focus strongly on how to get men to report it, so we can convince those with the purse strngs to fund ways of stopping as much of it as we can by all perpetrators.
          • Ross 13.3.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 11:53 am

            The Stuff article above which I linked to explained why men don’t report violence by their partners – shame and embarrassment are the primary reasons.
            • Tracey 13.3.1.1.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 11:57 am

              I have read both your links. I am also trying to find links to the research itself. If you find them before me can you post th elinks to the published research?

              Of most importance from your first link, imo, is

              “If you’re being abused or suspect somebody you know may be being abused, there are plenty of organisations out there ready to help men, women, and children deal with family violence.

              Pai Ake Solutions: http://www.paiake.co.nz 0800 PAI AKE (0800 724 253)

              Relationships Aotearoa: http://www.relationshipsaotearoa.org.nz 0800 735 283

              Shine: http://www.2shine.org.nz 0508 744 633

              Family Violence Information Line: areyouok.org.nz 0800 456 450

              Women’s Refuge: womensrefuge.org.nz 0800 REFUGE or 0800 733 843

              Waikato Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse: survivor.org.nz 07 858 4112″
            • Tracey 13.3.1.1.1.2

              27 October 2015 at 11:58 am

              I get that Ross. But the focus needs to be on successful ways to break that down.
            • weka 13.3.1.1.1.3

              27 October 2015 at 12:22 pm

              The Stuff article above which I linked to explained why men don’t report violence by their partners – shame and embarrassment are the primary reasons.

              Yes, and I’d guess there are structural reasons too (how do the police respond, where are the safe places for men to go etc).
        • weka 13.3.1.2

          27 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

          “So, Fergusson does talk about the evidence. Of course, there will be those who don’t like the evidence and will, as Fergusson suggests, argue purely on ideological grounds.”

          Yes, but I’m asking you to analyse the evidence, not just say there is some. You haven’t done that. It’s a fairly well known phenomenon that some men will argue that women hit men just as much as the other way round, but these arguments have been played out on the internet many times and from what I’ve seen they always end up with the fact that the studies that show women hit men as much as men hit women define violence in quite different ways than other studies and experience that show men are overwhelmingly more violent than women.

          The real shame here is that as long as some men keep on with this line we won’t get to look at men victims of DV. It’s probably part of the reason that we don’t look at reporting issues much either. When you can be respectful of the situation that women are in I think you will find there is a lot of empathy and willingness to work for men’s wellbeing as well.
          • tracey 13.3.1.2.1

            27 October 2015 at 12:28 pm

            There is also the issue of how “violence” is being defined. I want to see th study itself to uncover that. It seems ridiculous hard to find… but I am probably not searching the right stuff. I did go directly to David Fergson’s publications but it wasn’t clickable
            • weka 13.3.1.2.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 12:37 pm

              Thanks tracey. I basically can’t be bothered looking because it’s a tired old argument, which is why I was asking Ross to do the analysing. I’m pretty sure that the results will come back showing issues around definition.
              • Lara …

                27 October 2015 at 2:31 pm

                Any investigation that uses the Conflict Tactics Scale is problematic in the extreme.

                Data which suggests women are just as violent as men most often uses this CTS. Its problems have been well addressed.

                The biggest and most obvious problem is if one partner thumps another and the other hits back, that’s a score of 1 for each. It makes no distinction to who initiates the violence and no distinction on the results of the violence. It also ignores sexual violence. Ugh. Quite useless in the context of ongoing domestic violence.
                • weka …

                  27 October 2015 at 3:49 pm

                  Thanks Lara!
    • Tracey 13.4

      27 October 2015 at 11:42 am

      from the article

      “Ms Balakrishnan said both studies used a wide definition of “violence”.

      “Most people would consider it family violence where there is physical violence, where there is fear, where you are afraid for your safety,” she said.

      She pointed to a national Justice Ministry survey of 5300 households in 2001 which found that 21.2 per cent of women, but only 14.4 per cent of men, said they had ever had a partner who “used force or violence on you, such as deliberately hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved you, or deliberately hit you with something, in a way that could have hurt you”.

      Police statistics also show that men dominate the worst cases of family violence, including 31 out of 35 family homicides last year.”

      In any event, what say you about how we resolve the violence problem. You do see it as a problem, yes?
      • Ross 13.4.1

        27 October 2015 at 12:04 pm

        Yes, I see it as a problem. I wouldn’t assume to know how to fix such a problem. Those working with prisoners who’ve committed violence would, I think, be in a good position to talk about solutions. Are there programmes that prisoners are required to do that lessen the likelihood of re-offending? That may well be helpful. However, there are people who may never go to prison and or who may never get the help they need.
      • RedLogix 13.4.2

        27 October 2015 at 12:05 pm

        And as long as the DV issue is framed in terms of “women can never do any wrong” and are always the helpless victims – then a lot of men are not going to listen. Their experience directly informs them otherwise.

        Of course male violence causes more physical damage. No-one says otherwise. But pretending it exists in isolation, when it is just part of a wide spectrum of violence that saturates our society has held us back from naming the root causes.
        • tracey 13.4.2.1

          27 October 2015 at 12:30 pm

          Way to misrepresent my contributions to the thread RedLogix

          I certainly have not once framed any comment here as women can never do any wrong.

          So, solutions please?
        • weka 13.4.2.2

          27 October 2015 at 12:41 pm

          And as long as the DV issue is framed in terms of “women can never do any wrong” and are always the helpless victims –

          Who is framing it like that? Be specific. Because the only person I can see doing that framing is you. I’m open to being wrong, links will help.
          • RedLogix 13.4.2.2.1

            27 October 2015 at 2:23 pm

            Try reading the OP. That is exactly how most men will read the framing.

            I know you don’t see the framing in those terms – but then again if you want men to say something – you have to be prepared to listen.
        • marty mars 13.4.2.3

          27 October 2015 at 12:50 pm

          “then a lot of men are not going to listen. Their experience directly informs them otherwise.”

          and this is YOUR hobby horse

          you twist it back to this point that you so often love making

          guess what?

          women and children don’t ‘ask’ for it – not now, not in the past, and not ever.
          • tracey 13.4.2.3.1

            27 October 2015 at 1:04 pm

            I took RedLogix to be saying that many men have experienced being on the receiving end of violence from women, and so turn off when it is portrayed as something only men do to women?

            The thing is our legilsation does not define DV as men against women, it is gende rneutral.

            IF speaking of it in gender neutral terms will begin the end of it, I am all for it.
            • marty mars 13.4.2.3.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 1:12 pm

              I thought he was saying the ‘helpless victim’ approach forces men to stop thinking because they know that there is no such thing based upon their (read red’s) experience.
            • weka 13.4.2.3.1.2

              27 October 2015 at 1:32 pm

              “IF speaking of it in gender neutral terms will begin the end of it, I am all for it.”

              There is a huge political problem with that. See, I hear women and men working in the anti-violence world talk about DV against women and men. But they don’t have the need to undermine women in the process and any gender neutral language acknowledges the differences in the issues that women and men face as victims or perpetrators of DV.

              I also hear men’s rights activists who most definitely blame women and want to undermine the gains they have made towards equality. They use the gender neutral rhetoric as a baseline because it supports their belief that men don’t have privilege or particular responsibilities because they are men. Making it gender neutral renders the gender specific aspect of DV invisible.

              We don’t need to call women’s refuges, people’s refuges. They’re for women, for very specific reasons. If men also need refuge, then they can decide what to call their own services.

              The law of course should be gender neutral because there is no need to write it as specific to any gender, but policy needs to take gender into account.
14. JanM 14

    27 October 2015 at 9:41 am

    And off we go – the battle of the egos!!! 🙁
15. Tautoko Mangō Mata 15

    27 October 2015 at 9:49 am

    Compassion and empathy are needed to deal with this problem.
    Although it is hard to see this, the perpetrators of DV are also victims, ruining their own lives as well as that of their victims.
    It is not the person that is scum, it is the BEHAVIOUR.
    It is the BEHAVIOUR that we need to target and change.
    • Bill 15.1

      27 October 2015 at 10:15 am

      Insofar as behaviour is contingent upon environment and a natural reaction to environment… oh, I’m only going to essentially repeat my self here, so here’s the link to the comment I already struggled through on that front.
    • arkie 15.2

      27 October 2015 at 10:19 am

      I agree that the behaviour is what we need to change, but that will not happen while we have people saying that asking men to do something to change this behaviour is ‘sexist’. The cry of ‘women do it too!’ is the very same flawed excuse as ‘Labour do it too!’. When do we let that stand? We must take ownership of our culture and call unacceptable behaviour out when and wherever is occurs.
    • Tracey 15.3

      27 October 2015 at 10:59 am

      There is plenty of research to indicate that why men behave violently is different to why women do. For example women who have low self value tend to look inwards and toward depression. Men who have low self value tend to look outwards and their pain becomes anger and can become violence. This is a generalisation, of course, and there are exceptions. But when seeking to resolve the issues knowing who you are dealing with is crucial, cos the “answer” is NOT the same for male and female perpetrators of violence.

      Describing anyone acting from a place of pain as scum, is also self defeating. They already feel/know they are “scum” which is one reason they behave as they do.
16. tracey 16

    27 October 2015 at 9:52 am

    While we are amidst this fixation with the All Blacks, in ALL our media, almost to the exclusion of all else, can we spare a thought for those homes where an impending rugby match is met with a sense of fear and trepidation.

    The good news for those victims of the aftermath of an All Black loss is that the All Blacks have an over 85% winning record. However if you have been beaten as a result of a loss, you don’t know in advance whether the match will be a win or a loss. Imagine that fear in children and partners between matches and until the final whistle.

    There is indeed a very dark side to our fixations as a nation.

    I also used to do the Christmas/New Year shift at our law firm, where I mainly dealt with emergency protection orders and ex parte applications. The mixture of months of pressure to buy…buy… buy coupled with alcohol and almost enforced get-togethers of extremely dysfunctional families reaches exploding point and UP goes the work of the Family Court to separate the violent from the victims. That was back between 1989 and 1994. It saddens me to see how little things have changed. And while I understand that not all violence is perpetrated by men, most of it is. If anything is changing it is that young women are now becoming more violent (according tot he media and some statistics). So, the only advance we have made appears to be to teach our young women it is a legitimate outlet for whatever ills them. maybe when you grow up in a society that only pretends to address this kind of violence, some see the only option is joining it?

    Our homes ought to be our sanctuary.
    • Rosemary McDonald 16.1

      27 October 2015 at 11:08 am

      “I also used to do the Christmas/New Year shift at our law firm, where I mainly dealt with emergency protection orders and ex parte applications. The mixture of months of pressure to buy…buy… buy coupled with alcohol and almost enforced get-togethers of extremely dysfunctional families reaches exploding point and UP goes the work of the Family Court to separate the violent from the victims.”

      Today, with the greater availability of credit…the fallout from the Xmas orgy of spending will be felt all year.

      Financial worries would probably be one of the biggest stressors in relationships….and that’s where we need to change from a consumerist culture.

      I don’t do Xmas. Haven’t for all my adult life. My choice. My decision. No stress at Xmas time other than the majority of folk who do, and see fit to give me shit for not joining in.

      Ditto with alcohol and drugs….you’re considered weird if you don’t drink.

      I had very good aversion therapy to make me make these choices.
      • Tracey 16.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 11:21 am

        it’s not the fact of spending money and that bill needing to be met alone Rosemary. My experience was the entire build up (people knowing they were plunging into debt), the pressureof family and the constant drinking to celebrate…

        Also, increasingly, redundancies and lay offs get announced with effect before christmas to avoid the need to pay out for stats.
      • Ron 16.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 11:28 am

        +100
        How refreshing to see that someone is ignoring the Christmas booze up in the workplace. At my last place of employment the partying was starting late November and continuing on till Christmas. I had dealings with a personal appeal against promotion case and was astounded to find the person’s personal file was endorsed with the statement that they were not a team player as they did not attend the after work socializing (read drinking)
17. shorts 17

    27 October 2015 at 10:10 am

    there is something incredibly sick and wrong with our society… the violence of individuals and appalling statistic for our country suggest we’ve got just about everything wrong

    we won’t solve anything by tackling only the end result – the violence (not that this is any reason to ignore it either) – we won’t though cause competition is our god and winning means everything
    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1

      27 October 2015 at 10:17 am

      This is why greater inequality hurts everyone: it even widens the gaps between winners and bigger winners.
      • shorts 17.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 10:23 am

        as really smart creatures we are so very stupid – we insist on living in ways that aren’t good for us and violence is one of the results of people finding themselves incapable of controlling themselves or behaving like a civilised being

        we glorify violence and competition in virtually everything we do and still wonder why so many men lash out at their loved ones
        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 10:30 am

          violence is one of the results of people finding themselves incapable of controlling themselves or behaving like a civilised being

          What is it that causes that loss of control?

          I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this ‘loss of face’—no matter how severe the punishment, even if it includes death.

          James Gilligan.

          In more unequal societies, loss of face – of status, is exacerbated by a steeper social gradient.
          • Rosemary McDonald 17.1.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 10:58 am

            “I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this ‘loss of face’—no matter how severe the punishment, even if it includes death.

            James Gilligan.”

            Very good point. Which could possibly be the ‘defense’ of certain celebs caught with their fists or feet out.

            How much is this to do with their own egos?

            Their own sense of self importance…self imposed status?

            Which could come down to low self esteem.

            (which will probably be blamed on their mothers (sarc))
            • Tracey 17.1.1.1.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 11:00 am

              pain turned inwards is often depression/suicide. Pain turned outwards is often anger/violence
            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1.1.2

              27 October 2015 at 11:09 am

              Yes, we’re a bunch of bloody cry-babies, obsessed with status, terrified of shame, and the next rung on the ladder is so far out of reach…
              • Rosemary McDonald …

                27 October 2015 at 11:34 am

                I blame social media. Being an aging fuddy duddy.

                Back in my yoof…there was no Facebook to tell you how popular or not you were….”I got two million ‘likes’, ‘followers’ etc. “you’re all losers”…. ppplueeze.

                Can’t for the life of me understand why the so called ‘successful’ put themselves under greater stress thinking more publicity is going to salve their egos. Make them more content.

                Our accepted definitions of ‘success’ and ‘achievement’ need looking at.
              • shorts …

                27 October 2015 at 11:35 am

                I think in many instances its more than status issues, I’d suggest that is but one of the many reasons some lash out
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  27 October 2015 at 2:56 pm

                  cf: quote from J Gilligan (above). His position as a prison psychiatrist is that all cases came down to loss of face.

                  Also cf: Wilkinson (co-author of The Spirit Level) The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier:

                  Rotherham’s just dog rough…
    • Bill 17.2

      27 October 2015 at 10:22 am

      …competition is our god and winning means everything

      Which is market relations, that flow effortlessly from patriarchy that is (at least in a western context) underpinned and informed by bizarre notions of God and His delegation of dominion over all He created to those He made in His image…

      imo
      • JanM 17.2.1

        27 October 2015 at 11:04 am

        Yes! You’ve made a seriously important observation there
18. weka 18

    27 October 2015 at 10:38 am

    For the men who think that this article is unfair on men, because men are victims of DV too, or men are victims of other violences that lead them to suicide etc, here’s the thing. You don’t have to undermine women’s politics and needs in order to get your own needs met. You can instead be proactive and promote solutions to the issues that men have.

    Not enough health screening programmes for men? Not enough support for men who are having desperate lives? Not enough analysis of how class/socioeconomics/ethnicity/disability intersect with men’s issues? Then start lobbying and organising on all those things. That’s what women did. We weren’t handed Women’s Refuges, Rape Crisis, Breast and Cervical Screening, law changes on a plate. We went out and organised and lobbied and worked bloody hard to get those things recognised and changed. We still do.

    Most women working in DV in NZ recognise that men’s issues with violence are complex and as well as requiring the kind of bold korero that Rachel Stewart has done, also require the actions that OAB is talking about (addressing poverty), and I would say other culturally embedded processes that underpin DV and other violence. For instance I know women with direct experience of DV who have also supported or done anti-violence work with men. The needs of men are being recognised there and not in an ‘it’s all your fault’ kind of way, but in a addressing core reasons and solutions kind of way. Most women working in various fields around women’s wellbeing also recognise the need for men to have this too.

    In other words, there is no inherent conflict between women calling men to take action on DV, and women and society supporting men to have their needs addressed too. There is enough to go around so please don’t make out that Stewart’s comments somehow are equated to men being suppressed or ignored. They’re not.

    Of course if you want to argue that analyses of power and privilege are wrong, you’re going to encounter resistance where that’s done in a way that undermines women or their mahi. I’d suggest for instance that using a thread on DV to promote men’s issues, esp in ways that are anti-feminist, isn’t the smartest move.
    • marty mars 18.1

      27 October 2015 at 10:48 am

      Yep I can’t really understand why the “what about…” lines come up- I see no conflict at all between the calls for action. It will be interesting to see if men in this thread can provide some solutions to our appalling record of violence against women and children.

      For me, as a man, the DV devastation is a result of various -isms, all complex, all interrelated and all entangled. Accepting responsibility for our own actions is the first step – we might not have directly caused these issues but we have to fix them.
      • Tracey 18.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 10:55 am

        It seems to me if society becomes less violent as a result of addressing male on female violence, it is likely that will also impact on those men who are victims.
      • Rosemary McDonald 18.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 11:21 am

        “Accepting responsibility for our own actions is the first step – we might not have directly caused these issues but we have to fix them.”

        Its a shame that “responsibility” has become a dirty word.

        I think, perhaps, that expecting governments to sort this stuff out is windmill tilting. Funding from government for various programmes comes with sometimes unpalatable strings attached.

        It suits governments having strife, conflict and competition within communities.

        While we’re fighting among ourselves, they are getting away with murder.

        We should be working on respecting each other.
    • weka 18.2

      27 October 2015 at 10:50 am

      correction, OAB is naming inequality, not just poverty as a core concern.
    • Tracey 18.3

      27 October 2015 at 10:54 am

      “You don’t have to undermine women’s politics and needs in order to get your own needs met. You can instead be proactive and promote solutions to the issues that men have.”

      Yup. And some men have se tup an equivalent of a womens refuge, and programmes to assist men. Even with the best intentions each time a thread (or discussion) about this becomes a “it’s not just men”, solution finding dries up and justification and argument ensues.

      See my example below about hwta happened when the national tragedy of boys falling behind girls academically happened in NZ.
    • Tracey 18.4

      27 October 2015 at 11:04 am

      I was a victim of sexual abuse, and I advocate for programmes and proper rehabilitation for those who offend in this way. I do not call for the death penalty for paedophiles, nor do I advocate “lock ema ll up and throw away the key”. These programmes exist and programmes with proven statistical success (over 30% reduction in recidivism) do NOT get widespread funding.

      Answers are in front of us but for reasons rarely explored “we” don’t utlise them. Is it just cost? Cos imprisonment is VERY expensive.
      • BM 18.4.1

        27 October 2015 at 11:18 am

        Too uncomfortable.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/nz-number-one-in-the-world-and-its-all-bad-news/#comment-1087198
        • Tracey 18.4.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 11:25 am

          your comment with its link is a bit cryptic. Write what you want to say BM.
          • BM 18.4.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 11:39 am

            Maori men are grossly over represented when it comes to domestic violence.

            The reason being is because Maori Male culture considers strength, toughness, fighting ability to be such valuable attributes.

            All this hostility and aggression when not properly harnessed comes out in the form of DV and other violent activities.

            The key to solving this issue is convincing Maori men that being able to solve issues without resorting to violence isn’t a sign of weakness and is in fact what people of skill and mana do when problems arise.
            • Tracey 18.4.1.1.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 11:47 am

              Wow, I didnt realise the answer was so simple. So we just need to pour resources into decent programmes that focus on maori men. Can you name a few such programmes that are showing good results?
              • BM …

                27 October 2015 at 11:54 am

                These people are doing good work.

                http://www.terunanga.org.nz/haip.html
                • weka …

                  27 October 2015 at 11:58 am

                  In what way BM?
                  • BM …

                    27 October 2015 at 12:08 pm

                    Teaching guys that thumping your partner or other people isn’t the best answer when it comes to dealing with issues.

                    They teach anger control and how to recognize situations when tempers can spiral out of control and how to deal with it.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      27 October 2015 at 12:19 pm

                      Sadly for you, racism is a far more intractable problem, and eugenics is probably the most violent idea in the world. You have a long way to go.
                    • weka …

                      27 October 2015 at 12:24 pm

                      BM, thanks for the detail, it does sound like good work.
                    • weka …

                      27 October 2015 at 12:27 pm

                      OAB, I’m not sure racism is a far more intractabe problem, but really what was wrong with BM’s comment? He’s highlighting how men can be helped at the personal end of the spectrum, which is a good thing to do.

                      Yes, I know you think he is all bad, but how does it help to focus on that right now, let alone dredge up past arguments that have nothing to do with it? Is pointing out BM’s failings via harassment more important than discussing DV? What kind of culture are we creating here?
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      27 October 2015 at 1:49 pm

                      Weka, I’m not sure that someone who regularly invites people to “fuck off, trole”, can teach me anything about debating violence and racism. Do your best.
                    • weka …

                      27 October 2015 at 2:09 pm

                      I think using past arguments and interactions as a way of trying to undermine someone’s points is a waste of time and just leads tedious meta arguments that go nowhere. It’s a form of ad hominem and straw man rolled into one.

                      You don’t like me calling you out? Fair enough. But I made specific points, pretty reasonable ones given the topic and the culture on ts and the amount of space that women here don’t get to talk, which you’ve just ignored. Your perogative, as it is mine to comment on the extent to which you take threads in certain directions that I find unhelpful to the debate and distracting politically.
                • tracey …

                  27 October 2015 at 12:30 pm

                  Thanks for the link
            • weka 18.4.1.1.1.2

              27 October 2015 at 11:55 am

              The reason being is because Maori Male culture considers strength, toughness, fighting ability to be such valuable attributes.

              Are you sure it isn’t just the warrior gene? Either way, a citation is needed for your claim, or we can just treat it as the piece of racist projection that it is.
              • BM …

                27 October 2015 at 12:02 pm

                Lol, typical south island pure bred whitey response.

                Go spend a bit of time around Maori guys and then you’ll see where I’m coming from.
                • weka …

                  27 October 2015 at 12:12 pm

                  I think I understand where you are coming from, not least because Māori culture in the south appears to have somewhat different relations between men and women (generally a high respect for women by men).

                  My problem is with the framing. There’s nothing wrong with strength, toughness, ability to fight, and yet you link this to hostlity and violence. In fact some men use their strength and toughness to not be violent and to prevent violence, so how does that work? I think you are confusing personal attributes with expressions of violence. I’d say the problem isn’t positive attributes like strength and the ability to fight, but what happens when you put men with those attributes in situations where they are continually undermined (colonisation, racist society, inequality). You can then look at how that plays out culturally once it’s become intergenerational. So, sure there are cultural issues, but I think your position ignores the wider context and is simplistic in the extreme.

                  Besides which, your argument is based on stats that you claim mean x. It doesn’t explain why white men beat their wives and kids though. Care to have a go at that?

                  If it’s just a matter of Māori men, or Pākehā men, or men in general going ‘oh it’s our strength that makes us hit women, let’s stop’ then you’d have to ask the question of why they don’t.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  27 October 2015 at 12:16 pm

                  Go spend a bit of time reading Arkie at 18.4.1.1.1.4 and see if it helps you stop shaming yourself.
              • Mike S …

                28 October 2015 at 12:18 am

                “The reason being is because Maori Male culture considers strength, toughness, fighting ability to be such valuable attributes.”

                I’d say that it’s far more likely (just like the vast majority of all incidents of men beating up women and in fact the vast majority of all violent offending) to be directly related to the consumption of alcohol (not other drugs).
            • One Anonymous Bloke 18.4.1.1.1.3

              27 October 2015 at 11:58 am

              The United States has one of the highest levels of violence in the world. Must be the number of Māori men living there.

              BM’s racism says something about BM, and nothing whatsoever about men, Māori or otherwise.
              • marty mars …

                27 October 2015 at 12:33 pm

                Yep BM and the blame game – pick your target doe see doe
            • arkie 18.4.1.1.1.4

              27 October 2015 at 12:01 pm

              The key to solving this issue is convincing Maori men that being able to solve issues without resorting to violence isn’t a sign of weakness and is in fact what people of skill and mana do when problems arise.

              Why just Māori? Seems like something everyone should be mindful of, remember your own link showed that roughly 50% of DV is committed by non-Māori.
              • BM …

                27 October 2015 at 12:19 pm

                DV stats

                European/pakeha 43% – population 69%

                Pasifika 6% – population 6.9%

                Maori 47% – population 15%

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

                If you could could bring down Maori DV rates down inline with the other demographics you’d cut domestic violence by 30%.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  27 October 2015 at 1:27 pm

                  You can’t do any of that though, because you’re a racist, and therefore a much bigger part of the problem.
                  • BM …

                    27 October 2015 at 1:37 pm

                    Are you Maori OAB ?, you seem to be taking this all rather personally.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      27 October 2015 at 1:47 pm

                      Correlation is not causation no matter how hard you clutch at imaginary straws. Your racism is violence, which makes you a hypocrite as well as a racist.
                    • BM …

                      27 October 2015 at 1:58 pm

                      Bot?
                    • weka …

                      27 October 2015 at 2:02 pm

                      Perhaps you two would now take it to Open Mike? Personal stuff is pretty off topic and likely to just go down a cul de sac.
        • joe90 18.4.1.2

          27 October 2015 at 11:33 am

          Too uncomfortable.

          With an estimated 90 per cent of family violence going unreported, nah.

          What is uncomfortable is most of those represented in the statistics being from the bottom end of the town reinforces an old social workers adage – the poor have very thin curtains.
          • Rosemary McDonald 18.4.1.2.1

            27 October 2015 at 11:36 am

            “…the poor have very thin curtains.”

            Yes. Yes. Yes.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.4.1.3

          27 October 2015 at 11:34 am

          It’s uncomfortable for BM to suck at logic and be a racist, let alone admit personal responsibility for either.
      • Puckish Rogue 18.4.2

        27 October 2015 at 11:55 am

        I’m sorry to hear that

        My father was a heavy drinker, supported rugby, hated gays (except for camp gays like Mr Humphries) but was never physically abusive towards my mom

        I’ve drunk more then I should have in the past (in my 20s mostly), played rugby, been in the military and practiced mma but I’ve never been abusive to my wife

        So what makes a guy be abusive to his partner because I really don’t know, its completely foreign to me yet the background I come from would seem to be a decent breeding ground for domestic violence
        • weka 18.4.2.1

          27 October 2015 at 12:02 pm

          I don’t think you are going to find a single answer to that. We can look at the broad societal issues (OAB’s inequality argument, colonisation, patriarchy), and we can look at individual stories/situations where men do the personal work to identify why they’ve been violent (brought up that way, victim of DV themselves, external stressors become overwhelming and they lashed out instead of in, lack of self control, they’re just an arsehole etc etc), and then there’s all the reasons in between.
        • tracey 18.4.2.2

          27 October 2015 at 12:12 pm

          PR

          There is some evidence about what is called “sub types”. That is factors that lie underneath folks who preptuate domestic violence.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940396

          “Prior studies of domestically violent men have found that perpetrators can be categorized into three groups. The study provides preliminary evidence that the following three subtypes also exist among female perpetrators:

          Antisocial perpetrators are often violent outside the relationship and have high levels of psychopathic personality traits

          Dysphoric perpetrators may have high levels of anxiety, depression and other forms of mental illness

          Low Pathology perpetrators have generally normal personalities and are rarely violent outside of intimate relationships”

          http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/13/personality-type-for-domestic-violence/16772.html

          There’s a good one page summary of subtypes here (which isn’t copy and pasteable)
          https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SSJC_usBJ5kC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=subtypes+violence+domestic&source=bl&ots=adiAC5XJyq&sig=_cazu4L-xQ3WBlT_0WTEGaw6wYg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBmoVChMIxcuyxqDhyAIVRdimCh24uwYF#v=onepage&q=subtypes%20violence%20domestic&f=false
19. Tracey 19

    27 October 2015 at 10:52 am

    When statistics told us that boys were falling behind girls in schools from an academic perspective, there was not a response of

    “but there are girls failing too”

    There was a general, accepted “call toa ction” and programmes, money and focus was put into equalising the disparity.

    Consider this, like that.
20. Tracey 20

    27 October 2015 at 11:07 am

    “A formerly violent inmate I interviewed for the documentary film “Voices of Violence (link is external)” stated that in the time he spent in an intensive therapeutic prison program (link is external), he’d “grown a conscience.”

    Richard Shuker (Psychology Department, HMP Grendon, Grendon Underwood, Aylesbury)
    Margaret Newton (Psychology Department, HMP Grendon, Grendon Underwood, Aylesbury)
    Citation:
    Richard Shuker, Margaret Newton, (2008) “Treatment outcome following intervention in a prison‐based therapeutic community: a study of the relationship between reduction in criminogenic risk and improved psychological well‐being”, The British Journal of Forensic Practice, Vol. 10 Iss: 3, pp.33 – 44
    DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636646200800018
    This has been downloaded 114 times since 2008
    Abstract:
    172 adult male prisoners were assessed before and after intervention in a UK prison‐based therapeutic community using psychometric measures of psychological well‐being and offence‐related risk. All mean scores changed significantly in the expected direction. For men tested after 12 months or more, concurrent changes occurred in both domains. Significant relationships were also found between parole board assessments of risk reduction and psychometric changes. The study suggests that interventions with offenders can target offence‐related risk and mental health as clinically compatible treatment targets. Interventions with offenders may need to focus on improvements in mental health to enhance participants’ readiness to address risk.
    • Tracey 20.1

      27 October 2015 at 11:09 am

      “Prisoners can be taught empathy through effective intervention programs like victim impact groups (link is external), where victims of violence speak to prisoners about their experience. The San Francisco prison system (link is external) embraced this technique and employed a treatment strategy that reduced recidivism (criminal re-offenses of released prisoner) by 80 percent (link is external)”

      http://www.glendon.org/product-post/voices-of-violence-part-ii-effective-treatments/
21. Tracey 21

    27 October 2015 at 11:15 am

    Innovative work by a US group of boys and men who believe that men cans top rape.

    “ASK AZ, ASK CT and ASK ND are confidential, free and available on iPhone and Android platforms; and they serve as an opportunity to promote bystander intervention and coordinated responses to sexual violence. To learn more please visit: http://www.askaz.org, http://www.askct.org and http://www.asknd.org.”

    Note, such a App can be used by boys and men who are victims too
22. Tracey 22

    27 October 2015 at 11:29 am

    Let’s lobby to make this kind of thing FREE for all, not just those who can get WINZ funding

    Living Without Violence

    Living Without Violence – brochureTe Ara Taumata Ora – brochure
    Over nine years, Man Alive has developed a unique approach to non-violence courses. Participants work in a group of 16 men with two facilitators, once a week for 2 and a half hours. We’ll also arrange one-to-one counselling if it’s needed.

    Living Without Violence and Te Ara Taumata Ora programmes run by Man Alive will not blame, shame or judge men. Men will however, be encouraged to take responsibility for their violence and understand there is no excuse for abuse.

    Trained facilitators help men create their futures, instead of destroying them, by working with them to:

    Take responsibility for their actions
    Learn how to avoid and manage conflict
    Have positive relationships
    Create safety strategies in their home
    Deal with personal issues
    Man Alive’s point of difference from other non-violence programmes is that they are run by men, for men.

    Our Maori programme, Te Ara Taumata Ora, uses the same themes as Living Without Violence but they are delivered in culturally appropriate ways. A Kaumatua attends most sessions, run by Maori facilitators.

    http://manalive.org.nz/images/ManAliveFeeSchedule.pdf
23. Rosemary McDonald 23

    27 October 2015 at 11:42 am

    This is shaping up to be a very constructive discussion.

    I have work to do, but l am looking forward to reading the comments (and following some of Tracey’s links) later.

    Keep it up. 🙂
    • RedLogix 23.1

      27 October 2015 at 1:33 pm

      Agreed. 194 comments in six or so hours tells us that this IS a live issue for many.

      It’s natural that some of us will bring different perspectives and priorities to a discussion – but the idea that no-one cares is absolutely wrong.

      If nothing else it’s perhaps the opposite – people care way more than they like to let on, but are often afraid of saying so, or being misheard when they do.
      • Rosemary McDonald 23.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 3:31 pm

        We might, just might, beat the comment count for the rugby discussion the other day. 🙂

        I use the word beat intentionally.

        Watching the rugby over the weekend (call it one of those things one does for domestic harmony) I was stuck by how much blood was flowing.

        And the bruises.

        I know that the poorly drained rugby fields of old that at least afforded a softer landing….but has the game got more vicious?

        The commentary team were almost gleeful at a particularly hard tackle….

        No coincidence methinks that we are up at the top of the chart….
        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 3:37 pm

          There are a lot of countries contesting the World Cup and only we are at the top of the DV charts.
      • Tracey 23.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 4:24 pm

        women are still misheard or unlistened to on oh so many topics. feeling invisible is debilitating for any gender.

        gordon campbell has a very good article today about how women are still undermined, daily in many cases just cos they are female.

        Inequality is deep in NZ and its offspring feature in our worst statistics
24. Tracey 24

    27 October 2015 at 11:48 am

    My understanding is that a lot of peopel who perpetrate DV have underlining issues such as mental health or personality disorders. I am NOT saying all people with mental health issues are violent. I am saying thereis strong research which indicates strong “sub types” in men and women who engage in DV.
    • RedLogix 24.1

      27 October 2015 at 1:38 pm

      This links into some NZ based research that came to light a few years back which suggested that around 90% of prison inmates had some level of clinically significant traumatic brain injury.
      • Rosemary McDonald 24.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 4:41 pm

        Yes…and the proportion of the head injuries caused by physical abuse as children?

        Consequences.
        • joe90 24.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 5:36 pm

          Anec-data ahead – tasked with redacting files released under the OIA a friend has remarked more than a few times about the awful and nearly always violent early childhood endured by a majority of offenders.
          • Rosemary McDonald 24.1.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 6:00 pm

            Yep….and a blow to the side of the head is less likely to leave visible bruising.

            A friend in her late forties suffered a relatively minor head injury from a minor car crash. Blow to the side of the head. It took her months to return to work. She was teaching, and apart from poor concentration she found her usual limitless patience was, well, limited.

            How much worse on a child’s developing brain?

            The sins of the fathers and mothers and all that.
25. Jeremy 25

    27 October 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Talking about violence, have you seen what goes on in our prison system? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpY2zaMNJDQ

    With the level of violence that gets passed down through generations in this country it’s no wander our domestic violence statistics are so high!
    • weka 25.1

      27 October 2015 at 12:46 pm

      I haven’t looked at the video, but it does remind me that the former Minister of Police Judith Collins believes that rape in prison is a useful thing.
      • tracey 25.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 12:52 pm

        “Police Minister Judith Collins said the actions of looters was akin to “people who rob the dead”.

        She expected to see the judiciary throw the book at looters.

        “I hope they go to jail for a long time – with a cellmate.”
      • tracey 25.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 12:56 pm

        Judith Collins lying (or misrepresenting) Heather Henare for her own ends on the issue of funding freezes for refuge’s and “gang women”.

        http://blog.rethinking.org.nz/2014/07/judith-collins-womens-refuge-turning.html
26. b waghorn 26

    27 October 2015 at 12:32 pm

    One part of the family violence problem can be laid at the Internet’s feet,I’ve been working with some young chaps lately and the music that they listen to I can only describe as underground American rap is full of degrading rubbish, add to that the freedom of access to porn and its not surprising that men are messed up.
    We as a country should be working on a way to filter everything that comes down the pipes.
    • tracey 26.1

      27 October 2015 at 12:48 pm

      “To explore the framework of healthy sexuality for prevention education.
      To discuss the intersections of pop culture, masculinity and prevention using hip-hop as an example.
      Materials:

      Presentation Slides: Color [PDF] or Grayscale [PDF]
      http://www.preventconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/files/2009/2009-12-07_Slides-Color.pdf

      Audio Recording [MP3]
      http://www.preventconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/files/2009/2009-12-07_Audio.mp3

      Audio Transcript [PDF]
      http://www.preventconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/files/2009/2009-12-07_Transcript.pdf
27. tracey 27

    27 October 2015 at 12:35 pm

    At this link on age 5 is an interesting table about preventing violnece

    http://women.govt.nz/sites/public_files/Final%20Current%20thinking%20on%20primary%20prevention.pdf

    warning: This was produced by the Ministry of Womens Affairs – please do not derail with comments about where is the Ministry of Mens Affairs or similar)
    
28. tracey 28

    27 October 2015 at 12:38 pm

    “There are encouraging results from interventions aimed at building men’s skills as active bystanders and using their status as role models to intervene or prevent violence against women. This approach involves teaching bystanders how to intervene in situations that involve sexual violence, and is a step towards building a broader community approach to prevention. Evaluations have found significant uptake of pro-social bystander behaviour by both women and men, which has been maintained for significant periods after the intervention training”

    Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., and Moynihan, M. M. (2007) ‘Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation.’ Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463–481.
    Carmody, M., Ovenden, G., and Hoffman, A. (2011) “The program really gives you skills for dealing with real
    life situations”: Results from the evaluation of the Sex + Ethics Program with young people from Wellington, New Zealand. Sydney: Centre for Educational Research, University of Western Sydney.
    http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/carmody-et-al-sex-ethics-research-evaluation-june-2011.pd
29. tracey 29

    27 October 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Sadly alot of information is for sale and not freely available (which is an identifiable barrier imo)

    Authors

    Katherine M. Blakeslee, Deepali M. Patel, and Melissa A. Simon, Rapporteurs; Forum on Global Violence Prevention; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine
    Description

    In the last 25 years, a major shift has occurred in the field of violence prevention, from the assumption that violence is inevitable to the realization that violence is preventable. As we learn more about what works to reduce violence, the challenge facing those who work in the field is how to use all of this new information to rapidly deploy or enhance new programs. At the same time, new communications technologies and distribution channels have altered traditional means of communications, and have made community-based efforts to prevent violence possible by making information readily available. How can these new technologies be successfully applied to the field of violence prevention?

    On December 8-9, 2011, the IOM’s Forum on Global Violence Prevention held a workshop to explore the intersection of violence prevention and information and communications technology. The workshop – called “mPreventViolence” – provided an opportunity for practitioners to engage in new and innovative thinking concerning these two fields with the goal of bridging gaps in language, processes, and mechanisms. The workshop focused on exploring the potential applications of technology to violence prevention, drawing on experience in development, health, and the social sector as well as from industry and the private sector. Communication and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary is the report that fully explains this workshop.
30. Richard@Down South 30

    27 October 2015 at 12:47 pm

    As a kid, I remember my dad being abusive towards my mum and myself… horrible… It’s something that I hate to see, and I have no desire to see any woman go through. It hits a nerve…

    That said, women too, commit domestic abuse, and more often than is accounted for. Equal rights for all… its never OK
    • tracey 30.1

      27 October 2015 at 12:49 pm

      I think the one thing we can all agree on is that there is TOO much violence in our society.
      • Colonial Viper 30.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 2:09 pm

        Having said that, violence is only the symptom.
        • Tracey 30.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 4:59 pm

          well, given your desire for complete ideological overhaul is unlikely to happen any time soon, do you have any solutions for the here and now that might stop further victims of violence piling up?
      • Richard@Down South 30.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 5:12 pm

        Oh I agree completely, but if we ignore one gender, we fail everyone…

        It should be educated, as well as enforced, that violence against others, is not ok, regardless of age, gender, religious belief or any other excuse
31. Muttonbird 31

    27 October 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Embarrassing for National that this terrible achievement has occurred under their watch.
    • tracey 31.1

      27 October 2015 at 1:46 pm

      Under respective Government’s watch for many many decades. They are not alone in not finding ways to provide effective resources tot he right places.
      • Colonial Viper 31.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 2:08 pm

        Is that the source of NZ’s violence problem then? Other countries are better at ‘providing effective resources to the right places’?
        • Tracey 31.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 4:53 pm

          Perhaps focus on Muttonbird who thinks it all lies at the feet of the current government.
32. Alex 32

    27 October 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Having the highest rates of reported domestic violence in the world is actually a very good thing.

    Domestic violence reporting in the particular pacific island country where I work has increased 10 fold in the last year and we are celebrating!

    This increased reporting is not a sign that things are getting worse. In fact it is the exact opposite; a sign of the growing intolerance for these behaviours and concerted efforts of police and policy makers.

    Domestic violence is chronically under-reported the world over so the fact that we are seeing higher levels of reported offenses in New Zealand is a great indicator that that we are on the right track and these behaviours are being tolerated less and less in our society. Still plenty of work to do but good on us.
    • vto 32.1

      27 October 2015 at 2:30 pm

      That is a very good point. Like more shark attacks means more people swimming in the briny, not more aggressive sharks
    • The lost sheep 32.2

      27 October 2015 at 3:31 pm

      I’ve lived on an Island where what we are defining as DV was absolutely an everyday part of daily life, especially towards children….but no one ever considered it as such, let alone would have dreamed of reporting it. (Spare the Rod etc)
      This was a society that had far far less inequality than NZ….
      I do suspect that if the general perception of what constituted DV, and reporting of same was equally consistent throughout the World, we might need to re-write some of the linkages that have been quoted here.

      I don’t know if there is any research that would back this up, but my anecdotal experience of that culture here in NZ, based on an active ongoing relationship with members of it, is that the rates of DV would be far less here in NZ than on The Island, particularly in relation to children, largely because of an awareness of a differing societal attitude in NZ, and the possibility of legal consequences.

      Just saying, but maybe specific cultural attitudes do play some role in creating some of the environments DV seems to be most prevalent, and so therefore targeting change in specific cultural attitudes may be part of the solution for those environments?
      • McFlock 32.2.1

        27 October 2015 at 3:50 pm

        🙄

        was your island a member of the OECD?
        Read the post.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 32.2.2

        27 October 2015 at 3:55 pm

        Without knowing which island you mean, drawing direct comparisons between OECD and developing countries can be…problematic. For example, many epidemiological findings about inequality are specific to developed nations.

        One cultural attitude that definitely produces bad outcomes is colonialism, and other manifestations of the white person problem.
      • Tracey 32.2.3

        27 October 2015 at 4:54 pm

        All the people I have personal dealings with who were sexually abused or victims of domestic violence have been white. I am NOT saying that race doesn’t play a part but looking for a solution that somehow absolves 9and thereby excludes) white folks perpetuates a fallacy.
        • The lost sheep 32.2.3.1

          27 October 2015 at 8:46 pm

          Agree Tracy, and I thought I had put in sufficient qualifiers to make it clear I was only referring to a specific situation in response to the comment Alex had made.

          But if not, I can assure you that I was no more trying to absolve ‘whites’ from DV by my comments, than you are trying to absolve ‘non-whites’ with your anecdote about all the people you have had personal dealings with.
          • Tracey 32.2.3.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 8:52 pm

            especially as I wrote ” I am NOT saying that race doesn’t play a part”

            😉

            Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa and goodnight sir.
          • McFlock 32.2.3.1.2

            28 October 2015 at 12:58 am

            So just how much were MBIE billed to “repair” you?

            Did they get proof that the work was completed?
33. vto 33

    27 October 2015 at 2:29 pm

    Are men really more violent and abusive than women?

    They certainly achieve more when it comes to physical abuse because they are bigger..

    But overall violence and abuse, which includes physical, emotional, social, psychological etc etc ……

    If all types of violence and abuse are added up – which gender is the most abusive and violent? Genuinely curious..
    • maui 33.1

      27 October 2015 at 2:48 pm

      Geezez, anything to deflect away from the actual issue. You could always write a post on the thousands of men seeking counselling from the mental violence of women or something.. if that really is a critical national issue…
      • vto 33.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 2:50 pm

        jeeezee yourself man

        why not just post a list of the types of questions that are allowed to be asked and be done with it?
        • marty mars 33.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 2:56 pm

          why not ask if you should wipe your bum after having shit – same style of questions mate
      • vto 33.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 2:55 pm

        gaaahh… edit function malfunction… maui, how is it a poor question? The entire post is based on the fact that men are apparently more violent and abusive than women. The question addresses this fundamental aspect. If it cannot be answered then it destroys the underlying premise of the post
        • marty mars 33.1.2.1

          27 October 2015 at 2:58 pm

          ” that men are apparently…”

          what do the facts say?

          Why not do some personal research lazybones
          • vto 33.1.2.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 3:15 pm

            “what do the facts say?”

            In relation to the physical form of violence the facts are clear. Less so with other forms, hence the question.

            “Why not do some personal research lazybones”

            Because, apologies in advance, I have limited skills in looking for such knowledge and am well aware that there are many people on this site who seem to have instant, vastly superior, and detailed access to all kinds of stats and information relating to our society.

            Why is this question such a problem?
            • Tracey 33.1.2.1.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 5:01 pm

              just use google vto. That’s all i do. It’s not a secret weapon. If you wanna know the answer to something go to http://www.google.com and use the search function. I am NOT being sarcastic, but I generally know what I know from my experiences or reading what interests me.
        • maui 33.1.2.2

          27 October 2015 at 3:03 pm

          This is like climate change deniers jumping on climate change posts.
          • vto 33.1.2.2.1

            27 October 2015 at 3:11 pm

            Horse dung it is

            Which gender is the more violent and abusive, across all forms of violence and abuse?

            Simple

            Highly relevant
            • arkie 33.1.2.2.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 3:13 pm

              Men.
              • vto …

                27 October 2015 at 3:15 pm

                evidence?
                • Colonial Viper …

                  27 October 2015 at 3:19 pm

                  physical violence and abuse I’d say its men. Emotional violence and abuse I’d say women are right up there. You can even see it in the behaviour of women towards other women.
                  • Tracey …

                    27 October 2015 at 5:01 pm

                    evidence?
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      28 October 2015 at 12:26 am

                      evidence? are you serious?
                  • marty mars …

                    27 October 2015 at 5:38 pm

                    you ‘say’ do you

                    I say the emotional violence and abuse from men is far far above anything women do, like exponentially greater, powers of magnitude greater and men often do that to women and men and children and animals and nature, and they do it consciously and unconsciously, slyly and overtly, directly and indirectly.
                    • BM …

                      27 October 2015 at 6:21 pm

                      You’d be quite surprised.

                      Lots of women treat men like some sort of personal serf/money bank, purely there for her needs,entertainment and to provide money to keep her in the style she expects.

                      Which is hardly surprising as it’s what you see promoted in media on a daily basis.

                      Could be a reason behind any rise in domestic violence.
                    • McFlock …

                      28 October 2015 at 1:02 am

                      lol

                      Outstanding line, BM. We can reduce domestic violence by educating women to not be nagging gold-diggers who end up being hit.

                      That’s mighty veitchy of you.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  27 October 2015 at 3:19 pm

                  …abounds.

                  In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    27 October 2015 at 3:27 pm

                    Three to one is a large, but not an overwhelming ratio. And the rate by women is climbing, no doubt, like violent crime by women overall.
                    • McFlock …

                      27 October 2015 at 4:11 pm

                      great. Now we’re parsing the exact meaning of “overwhelming”.

                      Three to one still justifies a practical targeting of intervention in a gender non-neutral manner.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      27 October 2015 at 6:12 pm

                      Sure McFlock, best you break it down into ethnic groups too.
                    • McFlock …

                      27 October 2015 at 9:56 pm

                      In case you hadn’t noticed links elsewhere, different interventions are focused towards particular ethnic groups.

                      But the “three to one” community seems to have a larger number of loud complainers who deny that their social group collectively has any responsibility or agency in the problem.
                  • vto …

                    27 October 2015 at 3:28 pm

                    Yes CV and oab, already acknowledged when it comes to physical violence. (24% for women is much higher than I would have anticipated though)

                    It is the other forms and total count on the issue about which the wonder is ….
                    • arkie …

                      27 October 2015 at 3:52 pm

                      Apples and oranges.
                  • vto …

                    29 October 2015 at 8:07 am

                    When it comes to the physical form of violence measured there – I wonder if the physical size and strength factor was factored out it would result in a 50-50 ratio rather than a 76-24 ratio..?

                    i.e. if men and women were of equal strength and size the ratio would be 50-50..

                    just curious, not stirring
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      29 October 2015 at 8:11 am

                      Curiosity is useless unless allied with honesty.
                    • vto …

                      29 October 2015 at 8:15 am

                      that is also why I have posed the question

                      brutal honesty
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      29 October 2015 at 8:22 am

                      It wasn’t a question: it was you “wondering”.

                      To illustrate a more usual definition of “brutal”, I think it’s transparently self-serving and irrelevant
                    • vto …

                      29 October 2015 at 8:31 am

                      yes I appreciate you have your views on me, but m actually hoping for an answer to the question:

                      If men and women were of equal size and strength would the ratio reduce from 76-24 to 50-50?
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      29 October 2015 at 8:36 am

                      Whatever I think of you, my comments pertain to your comments.

                      Genuine, brutal curiosity leads me to the conclusion that even if the statistics were 50/50 you’d still find a way to deflect from and excuse male violence.
                    • vto …

                      29 October 2015 at 8:45 am

                      yeah nah

                      i suspect the question then will remain unanswered until it next becomes relevant… see you then I guess
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      29 October 2015 at 9:39 am

                      It’ll remain unanswered until someone (perhaps you) does a bit of reading on say, testosterone might be a good place to start. Throw in some background reading (Gilligan and Wilkinson?) and I dunno, neurobiology? I expect the amygdala plays a role somewhere.

                      Maybe re-frame the question so as not to pre-empt the answer you want. That sort of thing.

                      Oh, and find someone who thinks it’s relevant.
                    • RedLogix …

                      29 October 2015 at 9:40 am

                      @vto

                      Part of the challenge in this discussion is that neither gender has any existential experience of what it is like to be the other.

                      Most women for instance have no concept what it is like living in a body that is constantly flooded with 10 – 20 times more testosterone than they do. (The few that have tried high levels of injectable T report that they find it intolerably distracting and aggravating)

                      And for the sake of brevity I won’t explore how most men find women utterly baffling and frustrating, living their lives according to some mysterious code we are never allowed to decipher.

                      Biologically the two genders are different, with different motives, behaviours and desires. Feminism with it’s frequent insistence that we are equal, that gender is nothing more than a social construct, flies in the face of the everyday experience of most people – that informs us otherwise.

                      And we only have to glance at our genetic cousins in the animal world to see this confirmed at every example – in most species there is significant dimorphism between the genders. Humans are only moderately different.

                      In fact when you make this comparison the truly remarkable thing about human males is how extraordinarily adapted to the demands of being a social species we are. Mostly we co-operate, mostly we are not violent, mostly we nuture, protect, build and work all our lives to improve the lives of our families and community. By contrast most other mammalian males can barely tolerate each other, vigorously defending either territory and/or a harem.

                      Considering our biological heritage – humans have traveled a considerable distance. For the most part we have turned our gender dimorphism into an evolutionary advantage; for the most part we have leveraged our complimentary natures into a complex balance of competition and co-operation.

                      So my answer to your question vto is that if the strength ratio was 50:50 – we would not be recognisably human as we know ourselves. Either females would have much higher levels of testosterone to equal the male strength – and thus share the same emotional heritage, OR males would have much less and exhibit completely different behaviours themselves.

                      And as a result I do not think we would evolved anything like the kind of societies we live in – and the context of the question would become meaningless. This doesn’t mean it’s a pointless question though.
                    • weka …

                      29 October 2015 at 9:51 am

                      vto, the answer to your question is no.

                      Most women for instance have no concept what it is like living in a body that is constantly flooded with 10 – 20 times more testosterone than they do. (The few that have tried high levels of injectable T report that they find it intolerably distracting and aggravating)

                      That’s a misrepresentation of biology. Testosterone doesn’t exist in isolation so comparing it to the levels that women normally experience is a nonsense. Hormones are very complex and interact with the rest of the body, including the nervous system and the brain in very complex ways.

                      There are plenty of men who have experience with testosterone and don’t feel the need to be violent.

                      btw, feminism doesn’t say what you claim it does. You’re reading the wrong things.
                    • vto …

                      29 October 2015 at 9:53 am

                      Good points RL of course, thanks. I guess that’s what I was asking – if all those factors are weeded out, what is the result? But as you outline, perhaps it is impossible to measure…

                      … which actually goes to the heart of the post as well, in that it claims some sort of measurement of male violence as the basis for its ‘call’. Those measurements (i.e. men are more violent) are not measureable, nor relevant. And hence neither is the ‘call’.

                      btw, where is antony robin, the author, in all of this??

                      and oab, you’re an egg, spending too much time in negative personals. It is your downfall.
                    • RedLogix …

                      29 October 2015 at 10:07 am

                      @ weka

                      One brief comment is of course never going to cover the complexity of hormones and their behaviour impact. But to a first approximation the massive disparity in testosterone levels is the obvious starting point when discussing gender difference. Especially when responding to vto’s specific question around physical strength.

                      But it is still true that as a woman you have absolutely no concept of what it is like living in a body flooded with this hormone. For a start – it is NOT all about aggression. For the most part the energy and motivation it imparts is channeled into far more constructive things.

                      And yes I understand feminism is a very broad church. It has so many branches that cherry picking quotes to make it say just about anything you want is easy. I note that you are very quick to tell me “feminism doesn’t say that” – yet rarely have I seen you volunteer an explanation of what it exactly means to you.

                      Maybe then we could get to some clarity.
                    • weka …

                      29 October 2015 at 10:08 am

                      r0b doesn’t argue that the reason men are more violent is biologically based. That’s your strawman.

                      The measurements that show that men are more violent ARE valid and its pretty easy to demonstrate that. You take that as some personal affront that somehow it means you personally are violent or bad, but really I don’t think anyone else is saying that. No-one is even saying that men are inherently violent, so why take it personally?
                    • arkie …

                      29 October 2015 at 10:18 am

                      @vto

                      Those measurements (i.e. men are more violent) are not measureable, nor relevant. And hence neither is the ‘call’.

                      What?

                      The ‘call’ is for men to take some ownership of addressing the rates of DV in this country. This isn’t because men are more violent but because they are more silent. Many people in this country seem to think that DV isn’t happening around them or is just natural or whatever. This is the problem the ‘call’ is trying to address.

                      If people all over this country took it upon themselves to stand against the kind of ‘not-my-fault-not-my-problem’ sophistry that you’re engaging in, then we could begin to change this culture of DV that is endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand.
                    • weka …

                      29 October 2015 at 10:26 am

                      One brief comment is of course never going to cover the complexity of hormones and their behaviour impact. But to a first approximation the massive disparity in testosterone levels is the obvious starting point when discussing gender difference. Especially when responding to vto’s specific question around physical strength.

                      Except my point still stands. Hormones, biologically, don’t work in isolation. Yes we can make crude comparisons between testosterone levels in men and women and behaviour, but I’m not sure that that’s helpful. Much more useful is to look at things like neural wiring (especially childhood) and the relationship between brain functioning and hormones; how hormones are influenced by other factors eg the environment (social and biological); the interrelationship between belief, emotion and hormones; the interface between behaviour and biology (they’re not separate); and how learning new skills happens and affects all those things.

                      For a start – it is NOT all about aggression. For the most part the energy and motivation it imparts is channeled into far more constructive things.

                      Of course, but where have I ever said that testosterone is all about aggression? That’s your strawman, and vto’s.

                      And yes I understand feminism is a very broad church. It has so many branches that cherry picking quotes to make it say just about anything you want is easy. I note that you are very quick to tell me “feminism doesn’t say that” – yet rarely have I seen you volunteer an explanation of what it exactly means to you.

                      Maybe then we could get to some clarity.

                      I’ve commented from my own feminist perspectives enough for anyone involved in those conversations to have a general idea of where I come from. In this instance, I’m pointing out that you are misusing feminism from some reductionistic, pretty limited and ultimately inaccurate ideas that you personally have about feminism. I’ve seen you do this before and it’s part of my feminism to point out where feminism gets misused in this way.
                    • RedLogix …

                      29 October 2015 at 11:27 am

                      @weka

                      Of course, but where have I ever said that testosterone is all about aggression?

                      When you write this below – you demonstrate my point – that women can have no existential sense of what it is to be male. Which is why so often the feminist framing comes across to men as erasing or diminishing their concerns, their voices and their experiences.

                      There are plenty of men who have experience with testosterone and don’t feel the need to be violent.

                      The fact is that testosterone is the dominant biological driver of our lives. This quite different to women who experience a completely different cycle of hormones that have more subtle and complex effects. (Which is why you have framed the hormonal influence in those terms.)

                      For males it is something different. We cannot turn it off, it determines our physical strength, our sex drive, our energy levels and motivation. It’s what gets us into bed, and then afterwards up out of it and onto the next challenge. It also what fuels anger, rage, and the fight instinct. It also keeps us alive in the dangerous situations we put ourselves in, it inspires us to go out into a challenging world, take risks and make things happen. It is all of these things at once, is what makes us male, and is inseparable from who we are.

                      This does not gainsay what you are saying about the environment (social and biological); the interrelationship between belief, emotion and hormones; the interface between behaviour and biology . On this I agree and we’ve had plenty of other conversations that roughly fall into this space. But in any conversation about gender it also futile to ignore this very basic and fundamental biology.

                      But in your conversation here all you have wanted to do is diminish and mimimise this. That tells me at the very least, you are not listening.
                    • weka …

                      29 October 2015 at 12:00 pm

                      You’re making a whole bunch of inaccurate interpretations of what I am saying. I’m going to correct those as I go along.

                      “Of course, but where have I ever said that testosterone is all about aggression?”

                      You haven’t answered that.

                      When you write this below – you demonstrate my point – that women can have no existential sense of what it is to be male. Which is why so often the feminist framing comes across to men as erasing or diminishing their concerns, their voices and their experiences.

                      Mistake #1. My comments in this thread about the complexities of biology aren’t coming from a feminist perspective. Theyre coming from my understanding of human anatomy and physiology.

                      Some men feel their concerns are diminished, but not all be any means. And within those that do, there is a spectrum. As I’ve said before, not all men’s voices are welcome in these conversations. I’m certainly not going to be polite and accommodate MRA perspectives any more than I would the white supremacists. How close you come to that I don’t know, but at least I am here in the conversation.

                      “There are plenty of men who have experience with testosterone and don’t feel the need to be violent.”

                      I was simply pointing out that your assertion that women don’t know shit about men’s experiences is largely irrelevant because as a woman I can talk to and listen to men who have their own experiences, and some of those men disagree with what you are saying. So you can try and write off my perspectives based on me being female (and feminist), but it doesn’t wash.

                      Bear in mind you are in a thread about domestic violence against women.

                      Plus, not all people are male/female in the way you are presenting.

                      The fact is that testosterone is the dominant biological driver of our lives. This quite different to women who experience a complex cycle of hormones that have more subtle and complex effects. (Which is why you have framed the hormonal influence in those terms.)

                      Right, so you claim the women can’t understand men, but now you claim to understand women (despite earlier having said you don’t). Sorry, but this is daft. We have various ways of understanding human biology, from hardcore science all the way through to personal experience. I’m rejecting this basic aspect of your argument that men and women can’t understand each other. I’m not Māori, but I can learn about the experiences of being Māori from being with Māori. Likewise most human experiences.

                      For males it is something different. We cannot turn it off, it determines our physical strength, our sex drive, our energy levels and motivation.

                      Yet you seem to think that somehow women’s hormonal systems can be self-controlled, or are sublte enough to not create some similar issues that men. Try telling that to women with PMS or menopausal hot flashes. Sorry, but I think you have a pretty poor understanding of hormones and how they work in the human body, both male and female.

                      I haven’t seen anyone here suggesting that men turn off their hormones (that’s your strawman). You appear (based on previous comments too) to be arguing that men are captured by their hormones in ways that women aren’t. I think that men and women are different and that hormonal processes happen differently for sure, but in neither class of people do I see any evidence that hormones dictate behaviour in the ways you are suggesting. If it were that simple, all men would be violent (which no-one here has suggested as an argument apart from vto). Obviously for individuals this is going to vary hugely depending on all the factors I listed up thread.

                      It’s what gets us into bed, and then afterwards up out of it and onto the next challenge. It also what fuels anger, rage, and the fight instinct. It also keeps us alive in the dangerous situations we put ourselves in, it inspires us to go out into a challenging world, take risks and make things happen. It is all of these things at once, is what makes us male, and is inseparable from who we are.

                      So? We could make a similar list for women (at the same time acknowledging that it’s a generalisation and doesn’t apply to all people and that we’re not yet smart enough to separate out nature/nurture let alone get gene expression and other aspects that are about systems and relationship rather than mechanics). I’m sure that trans and intersex people would have their own perspectives on this as well.

                      We could also then look at the overlaps between men and women (and other genders) that make the kind of determinism you are suggesting highly unlikely.

                      This does not gainsay what you are saying about the environment (social and biological); the interrelationship between belief, emotion and hormones; the interface between behaviour and biology . On this I agree and we’ve had plenty of other conversations that roughly fall into this space. But in any conversation about gender it also futile to ignore this very basic and fundamental biology.

                      Please point to where I am ignoring fundamental biology. Be specific.

                      But in your conversation here all you have wanted to do is diminish and mimimise this. That tells me at the very least, you are not listening.

                      No, I’m not. I think biology is a huge part of it. You made the inaccurate statement that feminism denies biology, and now you appear to have attached that to me. I don’t believe that, your ideas about feminism and my beliefs are self-serving projection (and wrong).

                      I think biology is a huge part of it, it’s just not determinative in the way you are suggesting (see previous comment about men having different experiences of their biology).

                      I’m not minimising, I’m disagreeing, but in amongst that I’m calling bullshit on some of your approaches (eg making claims about feminism, projecting them on to me, the strawmen etc), which is probably what you are reacting to.
                    • RedLogix …

                      29 October 2015 at 2:05 pm

                      @weka

                      As usual any conversation with you is doomed because you never listen. All I’m getting back are misinterpretations filtered through your own pre-conceived ideas.

                      And some pretty obvious contradictions. For the sake of brevity – I’ll stick to just one of them:

                      I think that men and women are different and that hormonal processes happen differently for sure, but in neither class of people do I see any evidence that hormones dictate behaviour in the ways you are suggesting.

                      I think biology is a huge part of it, it’s just not determinative in the way you are suggesting

                      So exactly what are you saying here. That biology plays a minimal role, or a huge one?

                      Of course the two genders can have an understanding of each other (the idea we cannot is your strawman) – but equally we cannot existentially experience what it is like for each other. You will always ‘understand’ men from the standpoint of being a woman and from what we can tell you of ourselves. If you do not listen to us – you cannot deduce it for yourself.

                      We’ve been fighting the DV issue for decades. This is absolutely not a new issue. And despite all the time and energy put into it – the police are still busy, the refuges are still full, lives are still being wrecked and we’re still debating the ideology of it all.

                      And maybe, just maybe the lack of progress is because the acceptable framing of issue has been largely captured by women. (I’ll avoid the loaded word ‘feminism’ – because emphatically the people of the wrong end of too much it are plain women minus any sort of ideology.)

                      Yet as the OP demands – this is an issue that can only be solved by BOTH genders. Men have to be involved and motivated to change this as much as women obviously are – but as you repeatedly insist – you really don’t want to hear what we want to say.

                      Your sly comparison with ‘white supremists’ is for instance obviously intended to shame and silence.
                    • marty mars …

                      29 October 2015 at 2:20 pm

                      I leave you to it but red you DON’T speak for me. I’m a man and I agree with weka – I spose I’ll be shamed as a gendertraitor for that.
                    • RedLogix …

                      29 October 2015 at 4:08 pm

                      @marty

                      I understand that … no more than feminists speak for all women either.

                      I spose I’ll be shamed as a gendertraitor for that.

                      umm no. Where have I done that? And why do think I would?
    • Bill 33.2

      27 October 2015 at 3:48 pm

      Okay VTO.

      Lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that women are as violent towards men as men are towards women. And then let’s assume that a given percentage of those numbers are split evenly between men and women abusers where children are a part of the domestic situation.

      We know that most single parent families are headed by women, yes?

      So, it seems reasonable to assume that an abused man can walk away from a situation far easier than an abused woman, yes?

      So that even if it was the case that women were as equally violent towards men as men were towards women, then the really existing rates of incidence…the longer term situations…would be weighted to involve abused women far more than it would abused men.

      Even taking children out of the picture but factoring in other really existing sorts of social expectations, restrictions and realities, then abused women would account for more of those being abused than would men, because men can exit abusive situations far easier than women can.

      Society then, has a problem with men being abusive, not women. And that holds even if both genders are as equally predisposed towards violence.

      Not fucking rocket science.
      • Colonial Viper 33.2.1

        27 October 2015 at 4:47 pm

        Society then, has a problem with men being abusive, not women. And that holds even if both genders are as equally predisposed towards violence.

        So is the solution going to come from specifically examining issues with society or is the solution going to come from specifically examining issues with men?
        • Bill 33.2.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 5:27 pm

          I keep referring to the same fact; any and all behaviour is within the normal bounds of reaction or adaptation to the environment the behaviour is taking place in. That environment encapsulates the inner psychological as well as the outer physical and cultural etc.

          There might be an element of chicken and egg in all of this, but I don’t believe society will be free of fucked up people until society isn’t fucked up.

          As far as I can see, the root cause of all the fucked upness is patriarchy…a deeply embedded set of ‘norms’. It’s riddled our social, political and economic structures and institutions…it bends both them and us in strange and not so wonderful directions. Time we ‘grew up’ and dropped it in the dirt I reckon.

          edit – On an individual level that means recognising it and rejecting it in all of its forms…Not an altogether easy row to hoe.
          • Colonial Viper 33.2.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 5:45 pm

            As far as I can see, the root cause of all the fucked upness is patriarchy…

            And why is patriarchy worse or more extreme in NZ when compared to all other countries which have a lower DV rate?
            • Bill 33.2.1.1.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 6:42 pm

              Aw c’mon CV, it’s not that patriarchy is worse or more extreme. Power configured in a particular way is power configured in a particular way. Like most things, the effects fall within bands or ranges. NZ is on the upper end of one comparative international measure – domestic violence. Across a whole range of measures, every country will come across as something of a mixed bag….comparatively better in *this*, average in *that* fcking woeful in *t’other*.
          • Foreign waka 33.2.1.1.2

            27 October 2015 at 9:58 pm

            A voice of reason, thank god. I lost hope and there it is – finally. So happy that there is some light in this darkness of clutching straws of justifications. Thank you, you made my day.
    • Tracey 33.3

      27 October 2015 at 4:55 pm

      You could research it with your own searches and post the result. I am sure most here would welcome it.

      I am in search of solutions to all the violence.
34. Colonial Viper 34

    27 October 2015 at 3:26 pm

    NZ has become a highly stressed, highly individualistic, highly socially isolated, highly materialistically focussed society.

    People feel like caged rats.

    No surprise that unhealthy outlets like alcohol and violence is where that pent up frustrated human energy gets expressed.

    You can tell men to “take responsibility” for violence all you want, but IMO that will make approximately the same level of difference as telling an obese person to “take responsibility” for their weight. That is, it might make a material difference in the edge cases, but overall, it won’t.
    • Tracey 34.1

      27 October 2015 at 4:57 pm

      Can you give concrete, rather than ideological changes that will make a difference. I say rather than ideological only because your ideological views I understand and can view your concrete suggestions to change the behaviours within that.

      We all, me included, find it much easier to dissect the “why” and it allows us to constantly drift away from solutions that will work.
      • Rosemary McDonald 34.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 5:31 pm

        Perhaps a system where the first complaint of DV made by a victim does NOT necessarily trigger a full blown response from the police/legal system…unless this is what the victim wants.

        Instead…ALL of the resources…counselling, substance abuse intervention, therapy etc. that tends to only become available (for free) when the case goes to court is mandatory for the perpetrator.

        Or something like this….http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/257069/programme-reduces-domestic-violence

        Part of the reluctance to make a complaint could be that the victim knows the perpetrator has a problem and needs help, rather than punishment.

        Being punished makes you angry….and here we go again.
      • Colonial Viper 34.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 5:40 pm

        Can you give concrete, rather than ideological changes that will make a difference.

        1) Empower every NZer by giving every NZer enough to live on – a significant UBI.
        2) Emphasise models of teamwork, co-operation, relationship building and creative problem solving in communities and the economy, not individualistic competition.
        3) Energise family life and prioritise good parenting by ensuring that people learn the skills and attitudes needed for safe and happy families.

        Not much gender based stuff here its all focussed on society and family life.
        • Tracey 34.1.2.1

          27 October 2015 at 8:26 pm

          Nothing terribly concrete either that will prevent DV (by any gender) between tonight and the next 30 years.
          • Colonial Viper 34.1.2.1.1

            28 October 2015 at 12:28 am

            as if you have access to a superior list of concrete policy changes which will do better.
        • Tracey 34.1.2.2

          27 October 2015 at 8:38 pm

          How will we implement 1-3?

          Lay out a plan brother. A blueprint. Get others to help fill in the bits you can’t. IF someone can actually blueprint a way forward, others might be prepared to follow it and even do what is needed to implement it.

          “Energise family life and prioritise good parenting by ensuring that people learn the skills and attitudes needed for safe and happy families.”

          Examples?

          What are the attitudes needed for safe and happy families?
          • Colonial Viper 34.1.2.2.1

            28 October 2015 at 12:29 am

            nah, Im not detailing out a plan. The experts who are paid to can do it.
            • McFlock 34.1.2.2.1.1

              28 October 2015 at 12:55 am

              lol
    • marty mars 34.2

      27 October 2015 at 5:13 pm

      Taking responsibility is the FIRST step and yep, sure, some/most can’t even get up to that one. If you hit someone, YOU hit them, not – they provoked me, they made me, I’ve had a hard day, I’m feeling stressed, I’m sorry but I just lost it and so on.

      cv your last paragraph somehow compares men’s violence to others with an obese person’s weight – they aren’t the same, not even close.

      Are we getting close to your hobby horse now?
      • Colonial Viper 34.2.1

        27 October 2015 at 5:31 pm

        Taking responsibility is the FIRST step and yep, sure, some/most can’t even get up to that one. If you hit someone, YOU hit them, not – they provoked me, they made me, I’ve had a hard day, I’m feeling stressed, I’m sorry but I just lost it and so on.

        Sorry I thought we were talking about societal and public policy solutions.

        Coaching people to take personal responsibility is an individualistic approach that no doubt both left and right would agree with.

        cv your last paragraph somehow compares men’s violence to others with an obese person’s weight – they aren’t the same, not even close.

        Just making a point that making people ‘take personal responsibility’ sometimes makes some difference, and sometimes it makes very little difference.

        We school righties on this all the time, after all.
        • marty mars 34.2.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 5:46 pm

          “Sorry I thought we were talking about societal and public policy solutions.”

          What are you suggesting as initiatives?

          “Coaching people to take personal responsibility…”

          hmmm the big issue of today imo – people want everything handed to them on a plate, no hard work wanted or needed, from CC to violence and lots inbetween.

          “Just making a point…”

          What alternative do you propose?
          • Colonial Viper 34.2.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 6:09 pm

            I got no alternatives and i don’t think we even have an understanding of why NZ is the worst of the lot.
            • marty mars 34.2.1.1.1.1

              27 October 2015 at 6:22 pm

              Good point – we may know what the problem is but we don’t know the whys and therefore we keep bandaiding it with bullshit and look disturbed when it doesn’t work.

              I do agree with you that there are macro factors in play and I’d also say the interweaved threads are strong – capitalism, exploitation, disconnection from nature and people and animals, stressors of everyday living, patriarchy, colonisation, christianity, specialisation, scienceism – anyway that list is infinite in some ways. With all of the macro factors the only thing we can do is take responsibility for our own behaviours and actions and help others (men) do the same.
            • Tracey 34.2.1.1.1.2

              27 October 2015 at 8:34 pm

              You might not have any solutions but they are out there and they need greater focus and support.

              Once we all turn our minds to enacting workable solutions rather than our collective navel gazing about who is to blame, who isn’t to blame, who has no responsibility to act, whether identity politics is evil and the curse that lies beneath all ills, or if all men are evil, we might be surprised at how much change we can be part of.

              But sometimes when it’s hard stuff it’s easier to be all intellectual and ideological and subliminal

              None of us knows best but collectively we can protect the vulnerable amongst all of us. First we have to REALLY want to.
              • Colonial Viper …

                28 October 2015 at 12:32 am

                sure, there are solutions at an individual and case by case level, but NZ society is creating the problem faster than those solutions will ever be able to band aid them.

                Thats what being worst in the world two decades after Jake the Muss proves.
          • Rosemary McDonald 34.2.1.1.2

            27 October 2015 at 6:16 pm

            “personal responsibility” ….bit of a red rag eh?

            Move past left/right/centre politics for a few minutes….

            Surely giving people the tools to effect change is more empowering than trying to solve all the problems that can exacerbate DV?

            Because the more we all depend on the Gummint…the more power those bastards have on us.

            The initiatives the gummint could put in place today….might just disappear tomorrow….then what?

            We have the internet, social media….we can have conversations about managing anger and frustration. About creating safe homes and happier kids.
        • Tracey 34.2.1.2

          27 October 2015 at 8:35 pm

          “Coaching people to take personal responsibilityi”

          Such coaching exists and is available.
          • Colonial Viper 34.2.1.2.1

            28 October 2015 at 12:45 am

            We’re suddenly keen to start getting Kiwis to take personal responsibility for the state their personal lives are in?
        • Tracey 34.2.1.3

          27 October 2015 at 8:39 pm

          “we were talking about societal and public policy solutions.”

          I was asking for concrete solutions. I posted links to a number of programmes that are proven to work to reduce violence
          • Colonial Viper 34.2.1.3.1

            28 October 2015 at 12:42 am

            thats great, but NZ society does not create highly angry violent men, and highly dysfunctional violent relationships because there isnt enough funded programmes.
    • Magisterium 34.3

      28 October 2015 at 2:04 am

      But crime and alcohol consumption have been declining steadily in NZ for years.
35. northshoredoc 35

    27 October 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Has anyone tracked down the actual data ?

    If our reporting rate has gone up significantly, while that is of course disturbing, perhaps apart from it showing we have a serious issue with violence it is suggestive of increased recognition and reporting rather than the issue being swept under the carpet as it has been over many decades ?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 35.1

      27 October 2015 at 5:22 pm

      Swept under the carpet like this?

      Inequality is violence.
    • Tracey 35.2

      27 October 2015 at 8:28 pm

      so if it is “just” a result of increased reporting we should rejoice and not pursue solutions? Shall I tell that to the next battered or sexually abused child/adult I meet?
      • Naturesong 35.2.1

        27 October 2015 at 10:48 pm

        I think you may misunderstand – I agree with doc inasmuch that I think it’s an important question to ask.

        If it is “just” a result of increased reporting, it means that we are now starting to see the true extent of the problem that has been with us all along.
        As opposed to an increasing problem.

        In both instances the rise in reporting should prompt action to address both symptoms and causes.

        Identifying if increased reporting is indicative of an increasing problem, or better data and recognition of and existing but not increasing problem is important because.
        If the if the level is broadly the same over time, but reporting is up, this means that
        1. Good, more people feel empowered to speak out, and …
        2. Bad, it means that what we are currently doing is ineffective in reducing the existing conditions and drivers of domestic violence.
        If the level of actual domestice violence is increasing, not just the reporting then
        1. Good. We can put resources into finding out what has changed in NZ recently that is driving the increase.
        2. Bad. It’s not your imagination, shits actually getting worse.
      • northshoredoc 35.2.2

        28 October 2015 at 8:22 am

        @ tracey – No.

        I also didn’t suggest that we should rejoice and not pursue solutions. you might like to re read my comment, naturesong appears to have understood where I was coming from.
        • Tracey 35.2.2.1

          28 October 2015 at 8:26 am

          As a doctor I guess i had hoped your contribution might have been more solution based, base don medical practitioners knowledge of what works to reduce violence in families and so forth.

          It isn’t for me to determine what people comment about and so forth, but this topic comes up over and over and over and is almost exclusively a long thread about what the true stats are, who is to blame, are men all evil, rather than what works to reduce violence and prevent the creation of new and renewed vitims.
    • McFlock 35.3

      27 October 2015 at 10:25 pm

      Dunno about the OECD rankings source .

      Police data is a dead loss – every time they get a dataset coherent enough to track, they change the reporting system.

      Hospital admissions for assaults on children are apparently massively underreported – it requires a clear diagnosis.

      Mortality in kids from assault (usually household member is responsible) is pretty consistent.

      CYF data is interesting – massive increase in notifications in the last ten years, but those notifications requiring further action about halved in proportion. Outcomes finding emotional abuse also increased massively, physical abuse less so, and sexual abuse findings have pretty steady numbers.

      So some of it might be reporting increase, but the increased reporting seems to be filtered through a fairly consistent confirmation criteria at CYF that seems to suggest more of the initial reports are not counted.
36. Naturesong 36

    27 October 2015 at 6:25 pm

    I have read this thread throughout the day and hummed and hawed about commenting.
    I finally decided to comment.
    Recognising that these events happened (and happen in other neighbourhoods) is important.
    This is the first time I’ve written it down.

    Please be aware that not everybody in the street knew the extent of the abuses happening in their neighbours houses. There were many adults in the street that did what they could to support the victims when abuses became apparent.
    Every child in the street over the age of 6 knew what was going on though.

    Here goes:

    My experience of domestic violence growing up in a middle class neighbourhood in Epsom during the 70’s and 80’s.

    Our neighbour immediately to the west of us used to beat his wife regularly with his fists. When bruises were visible, we would do her shopping so as to keep her family’s shame from being public gossip.

    Immediately to our east was a doctor who kept his wife in what can only be described as a chemical prison, she killed herself when I was 15. The son, who was my age, was recognised by the other children in the street as a budding sociopath (we didn’t know what it was called at the time, all we recognised was extreme antisocial, manipulative and violent behaviour). We did what we could to avoid him.

    Five doors down was a world renowned doctor who after being denied a divorce by his abusive wife (she was catholic – that was the reason for denying the divorce, not the abuse), informed her that he’d rather be dead than married to her, and then immediately killed himself in front of her using a method that can only be described as horrific.

    The next door down was a nest of paedophiles, starting with the elderly father who abused his boys, both of whom grew up to be paedophiles themselves, the one who preferred boys committed offences against an estimated 300+ boys (mostly middle class and well-to-do boys) between the ages of 11 to 14 over a 20 year period, over 30 of them testified at his trial.
    The other restricted his offending to female family members, of his three children the boy committed suicide, the eldest girl has divorced herself from all members of her family except her mother, and the youngest daughter has been in and out of mental institutions for most of her adult life.

    All these people are/were white.

    It may well be that the increase of reporting is just revealing an existing problem rather than documenting a problem that is increasing – but I’m unable to make an argument for either without more data.

    While this was my experience growing up, I don’t know if that level of abuse happens in every street. But I would suggest that it is plausible.
    • BM 36.1

      27 October 2015 at 6:41 pm

      The good o’l days.

      Lots of bad stuff happened in NZ back then, I’d probably say what goes on now would be a fraction of what happened back then.
      • Naturesong 36.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 7:00 pm

        I’m not sure that’s true.

        My experience growing up has resulted in my being somewhat sensitive to bullying behaviour, abuses of power and the enforced silence of its victims.

        As I go about my daily business I regularly see in strangers the mannerisms and behaviours I recognise from those that suffered in my street (it may the result be some trauma other than DV though)
        It’s a reminder that always seems to catch me by surprise.

        And then there is the widespread deprivation that is present in New Zealand with poverty affecting a significant minority of our citizenry.

        It begs the question, does violence increase with scarcity of resource, lack of self-determination, lack of productive work?
        • BM 36.1.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 7:09 pm

          You just can’t get away with the shit that happened back then, in that time period people would just turn a blind eye or wouldn’t say anything because they didn’t want to make a fuss.
          That’s how guys like Jimmy Saville got away with what he did.

          Terrible times for people who were abused, you were on your own and you just had to fight through it and some how come out on the other side.

          These days people are so much more aware, back then people just wallowed in ignorance or they just didn’t care.
          • Naturesong 36.1.1.1.1

            27 October 2015 at 8:07 pm

            Maybe, but I’m pretty sure that the institutional support* given to unrepentant offenders like say … Tony Veitch was the same then as now.

            It was just easier to hide it then – but, same outcome.

            * I don’t mean actual help in dealing with his problems, but help to ensure he does not suffer the consequence of his actions
          • Tracey 36.1.1.1.2

            27 October 2015 at 8:30 pm

            People turn a blind eye alot today BM. That is why one of the growing programmes to prevent sexual and domestic violence focuses on bystanders becoming empowered to act.
      • Tracey 36.1.2

        27 October 2015 at 8:29 pm

        you’d probably say it? Doesn’t make it any more factual than those who back then thought it was worse in the 1950’s than the 70’s and 80’s> Do you see a pattern?
    • Rosemary McDonald 36.2

      27 October 2015 at 7:07 pm

      Ditto…. UK in the 60s and 70s, then NZ in the 70s and 80s.

      This shit is NOT confined to certain demographics.

      The better off have thicker curtains.

      And status that it seems the wider community is obliged to maintain.

      (I could have been one of your neighbours, Naturesong)
      • Naturesong 36.2.1

        27 October 2015 at 7:40 pm

        The better off have thicker curtains.

        And status that it seems the wider community is obliged to maintain.

        This is true in my experience.
        The paedophilia was unknown outside the actual family and it’s victims until the more prolific of the brothers was caught and charged. It was years before the other brother was charged and subsequently convicted.
        The father died of old age having lived a full life and never having to account for his abuse.

        I recall being in their house when I was 11. The mother came tearing in and upon seeing me demanded to know where her husband was. She visibly relaxed when I told her I hadn’t seen him and quickly ushered me outside.
        I remember thinking the behaviour quite odd at the time.
        It was only later when everyone discovered what was going on that I recalled the incident.
        I assume she acted that way because she was fearful of what her husband might do to a pre-teen boy alone in the house.

        The domestic violence was different in that it was generally known by those who lived in the street (though only the children in the street knew the full extent of it).

        Women (all wives) who recognised domestic violence in individual families generally did what they could to support those who suffered, but carefully, within the social norms of the community: to not talk about it lest it bring shame on the families where it occurred, and to never overstep and interfere in anothers marriage by advocating or providing physical help or refuge.
      • Tracey 36.2.2

        27 October 2015 at 8:40 pm

        and can pay for good lawyers, and settlements, and can say the right things tot he right people to discredit the victim’s credibility.
    • marty mars 36.3

      27 October 2015 at 7:22 pm

      Thanks Naturesong for writing that comment. Whew, I suspect the scenarios you describe are more common that we want to even think about – then as well as now.
      • Tracey 36.3.1

        27 October 2015 at 8:31 pm

        ditto
        • weka 36.3.1.1

          27 October 2015 at 9:00 pm

          I’ve appreciated those comments to Naturesong. Most thought-provoking of the day.
37. reason 37

    27 October 2015 at 8:45 pm

    From the hand mirror …..” I went to a Refuge hui once where Māori women were talking about criminalisation of Māori men, and Pākehā women were talking about not being able to get adequate police responses to white middle class male perpetrators. I’ve personally seen the police not charge white men who have knifed their partners, and put their partners in hospital after beatings – even when they knew he was the perpetrator. The reality is, whiteness is like a magic cloud of fairy dust in all kinds of ways, and when it comes to causing violence, it’s the best way to avoid consequences, particularly when combined with middle class belonging. ”
    http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/chris-brown-and-fairy-dust.html

    I would suggest to BM the stats may over represent Maori violence …. and under represent white/european

    Cheap piss and the Alcohol drug industry are the single biggest driver of domestic violence ………… and all other serious violence for that matter.

    The Nats sided with the booze makers and protected their profits instead of taking the first easy and meaningful steps which would have lowered our appalling domestic violence stats ……. They made grudging token changes and generally subverted the recent Alcohol law review,…….. they used gutter attack dogs to smear and belittle health professionals working to curb alcohol abuse.

    Tolley, Collins, Key and Co are all bullshitters when they claim to care about domestic violence and abuse against children.

    Booze is the low hanging fruit but no one wants to touch it ………………….
    • Atiawa 37.1

      27 October 2015 at 10:24 pm

      Yes I believe alcohol is the greatest contributor to DV in NZ. I also think that people are often not ready for relationships/ parenthood as they are not worldly, and often too young and immature for life-time commitment’s. Thirdly, and as much as we know that DV is not endemic to a particular socio economic section of communities, poverty, helplessness and despair become’s a huge contributor.
      • Instauration 37.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 10:55 pm

        Alcohol just erodes socially imposed controls – (Christian, moral, fear, norm, peer) over predisposed predilections – of empowered rage. If we deal to the predilections – then we don’t need the controls. Then rage is benign.
    • RedbaronCV 37.2

      27 October 2015 at 10:47 pm

      When the Roastbusters debate was on in parliament to their credit most of the women MP’s of all parties were there with the sole male -Micheal Woodhouse the Minster for Police – repeating endlessly ‘that all women had to do was to report these issues to the police “. Obviously he hadn’t registed that these women had complained – idiot.
      The message from this seems to be that women care about domestic violence but men simply don’t see it as an issue that affects them and therefore the place they occupy in society. Bluntly that is probably largely true. (along with such things as pay equity)

      Women, when abused, suffer the physical, economic and social costs of violence and they are high. Most women know some one who has had to deal with these types of consequences.
      Male perpetrators actually suffer few long term consequences for their behaviour and may have many short term rewards so they don’t discuss their behaviour, Male non perpetrators appear to see it as nothing to do with them or wonder what the fuss is about. If it isn’t hurting them in some way why should they care?
38. Instauration 38

    27 October 2015 at 10:42 pm

    Can I please state the obvious ?
    DV is a consequence of people wanting to beat other people.
    Address the “need to win” to kill the “need to beat”.
    • Atiawa 38.1

      27 October 2015 at 11:24 pm

      It’s not as obvious as you want us to believe.
      DV is a consequence of people wanting to control other people.
      Address the need to exert “power & control” you will kill the need to beat.
      • Instauration 38.1.1

        27 October 2015 at 11:45 pm

        “Control” – the sole defining word of our obverse positions – is subservient to ‘beating’. Control is implicit in “beating” – “if I beat you – I control you – therefore I WIN”
        Seeing value in winning – is what we need to address.
        NZ’ers do not have “power and control” over AB success – but many think they do.
        This delusion is founded on an ascribed National culture of beating and winning.
        Deal to that culture – then we solve many issues.
        • Magisterium 38.1.1.1

          28 October 2015 at 2:09 am

          Control is implicit in “beating” – “if I beat you – I control you – therefore I WIN”
          Seeing value in winning – is what we need to address.

          Good luck counteracting a million years of natural selection.
          • Lara 38.1.1.1.1

            28 October 2015 at 8:12 am

            No. Just… NO.

            The violence that men do is NOT a result of natural selection. It has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nothing at all. Violence towards others does NOT mean your genes are more likely to be passed on. In fact, it may do the opposite. If you kill your kids you kill the genes you’ve passed on.

            Violence is cultural. Totally and completely.

            And culture we can change.

            We know it’s cultural because different societies in different places and times have wildly different levels of violence. Some are relatively non violent, some are very violent.

            I make this comment because this seems to be always where a discussion on violence in NZ ends up. A comment that it’s somehow inevitable because biology. That the best we can do is for the rest of us to somehow avoid violence . Which leads to a whole bunch of victim blaming. And restrictions mostly on what women can do and where women can go, and why doesn’t she just leave?

            Take a look at this link. Baboons have culture and that culture can change. Here’s an example of Baboon culture which changed from violent to non violent and STAYED THAT WAY FOR 20 YEARS. If Baboons can do it, then surely we can?
            • Tracey 38.1.1.1.1.1

              28 October 2015 at 8:32 am

              Thanks Lara

              “human nature” argument is a cop-out and a HUGE insult to all those who go through live never raising a hand to another human being.

              “boys will be boys” is a version of this cop-out.

              Note also the constant focus on single mothers… not fathers of children abandoned… not on holding them to account, not on programmes to teach consequence and responsibility to those who will father chilren. The focus of the debate is so often on the “problem” of the sole mother.

              Recently the revenue minister (I think) called for a wiping of all the penalties on unpaid child support. IF this will work, yay BUT one reason penalties pile up is cos at te beginning someone didn’t pay. Note how many in our society react differently to this than to other unpaid obligations.
              • Lara …

                28 October 2015 at 12:12 pm

                I note also that the majority of comments here are from women. With a few decent men thrown in for good measure.

                And that as usual when anything of a gendered nature is bought up we have a few men claiming “women do it too” and “men have it just as bad” or some similar refrain. Not constructive, not helpful.

                *sigh*

                It could be worse. In other arenas such as FaceBook (and its so bad I hardly ever go there anymore and have my own name for it) we’d be called “feminazi’s” or “misandrists” for daring to raise an issue which is deadly to women and highly gendered.

                At least no one’s called us “feminazi’s” here at TS.
                • Tracey …

                  28 October 2015 at 12:19 pm

                  I had hoped my links to real programmes with proven success would spark some comments too.
    • Tracey 38.2

      28 October 2015 at 8:28 am

      OR

      DV is identifiable by people beating other people but it is the response to many other factors (not a simple desire to win)?
39. Instauration 39

    27 October 2015 at 11:27 pm

    Address the “need to win” so that the collateral “losers” don’t END !
40. reason 40

    28 October 2015 at 8:01 am

    Insaturation seems to be a simplistic derailment troll …………

    For Insaturations education: …… Alcohol is a strong psychoactive drug, it turns down the reasoning or cognitive part of the brain while amplifying emotions.

    It makes you stupid and emotional.

    Increased levels of consumption are matched with increased levels of violence.

    Beatings and violence have more to do with anger and rage than ‘winning’.

    Alcohol psychosis/rage is the ‘drug crazed maniac’ that most of us meet 99 times out of 100.

    The DV offenders who use violence for control when sober are sicker/worse in my opinion ….. but also less common.

    There are many factors leading to violence but Alcohol is the elephant in the room ……….
    • Tracey 40.1

      28 October 2015 at 8:33 am

      I agree, for some, alcohol may bring the anger/pain to the surface but it rarely creates it from nothing.
    • Rosemary McDonald 40.2

      28 October 2015 at 8:42 am

      “There are many factors leading to violence but Alcohol is the elephant in the room”

      When Sue Bradford was pushing the repeal of Section 59, some of us, while wholeheartedly supporting the repeal, were frustrated that alcohol use/abuse was never seriously factored into the discussion about child abuse and DV.

      Despite most of us just knowing that this was probably the most common factor when comparing these cases.

      So….years down the track and children are still getting abused and still getting murdered and we still hear only peripherally about the substance abuse of the perpetrators.

      Why is this?

      Neither the Left nor the Right want to acknowledge this simple truth.
41. Tautoko Mangō Mata 41

    28 October 2015 at 8:53 am

    Maybe legalising pot will have an effect of reducing domestic violence.

    “Does smoking marijuana cause aggression?

    Marijuana usually has a sedating effect on most users, making it much less likely to cause violence in users than other substances such as alcohol and stimulants (e.g., amphetamines and cocaine).

    However, sometimes when marijuana is used it can cause fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia, which can result in an aggressive outburst. For most people, once the effects of the drug wear off, their behavior gradually improves.

    Some studies have found support for an association between marijuana use and various types of violence, including relationship or interpersonal violence (Moore TM & Stuart GL, 2005). However, no definitive correlation between marijuana use and violence in adults has been establish; the correlation appears to be stronger in adolescents (Copeland J, Rooke S, Swift W, 2013). Violence in anyone, including marijuana users, often has a multicausal explanation, with numerous factors impacting behavior, such as increased life stress, aggressive personality traits, multidrug use, or a history of violent behavior (Macdonald S, et al., 2008). Marijuana is also part of the global illegal drug market, which may increase the chances of violence occurring in some social interactions.

    Additionally, when people are withdrawing from marijuana they can become irritable, which can lead to abusive or aggressive behavior among people with a history of aggression (Smith PH et al., 2013). Studies have not found an association between withdrawal symptoms and aggression among those without a previous history of aggression.”

    – See more at: http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/factsheets/aggression.htm#sthash.WhwSwqwt.dpuf

    “According to data released by the city of Denver,
    violent crime and property crime in Denver
    decreased in 2014.i
    Violent crime in Denver went
    down by 2.2% in the first 11 months of 2014,
    compared with the first 11 months of 2013. In the
    same period, burglaries in Denver decreased by
    9.5% and overall property crime decreased by
    8.9%. ”
    https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_One_Year_Status_Report.pdf
42. gsays 42

    28 October 2015 at 9:03 am

    hello all, firstly thanks to you all for a mostly informative discussion.

    i will tentatively offer my 10 cents worth.

    i think a big part of the problem is children growing up without a male in the house.
    a good male who shows respect to his partner, who shows how to respond to anger, frustration etc in a healthy way. who can demonstrate how he loves his parents (especially his mother).

    i feel that maori males became lost when after contributing two generations to 2 world wars, then being encouraged, in the 50s and 60s, to leave their more traditional rural, communal way of life and come to work in the cities.
    then when the system didnt need them any more put them on the scap heap.
    perhaps this is what is happening now to lots of us.
    the growing precariat, undermines our sense of worth. leading to powerlessness, frustration etc.

    solutions? umm..
    obviously no silver bullet but howabouts building reilience in our boys and young men.
    celia lashlie says these things way better than i.

    i do not agree with ‘the male posse’ intimidation approach, however the same group putting thier collective arm around the shoulder of the violent man is a more constructive way of dealing with him.

    cvs comment about a ubi is a great step forward.
    anything that gets a parent back in the home raising children.
    having been around a few early childhood education centres (baby jail) recently, i despair for these little boys who are being raised by well meaning young women.
    too many times i saw normal boy stuff (loud voices, physicality, boisterousness) being stopped, shut down or corrected by their minders.
    • miravox 42.1

      28 October 2015 at 9:24 am

      “i think a big part of the problem is children growing up without a male in the house.”

      Most often children who witness DV, and maybe emulate what they see are, by definition, growing up with a male in the house. Your next sentence is more relevant…

      “a … male who shows respect to his partner, who shows how to respond to anger, frustration etc in a healthy way. “

      ^^ this. Although I wouldn’t use the word ‘good’. I’ve known men who are good people – very good people in many ways even. However they don’t know how to respond to anger and frustration in a healthy way and their behaviour toward the women in their lives is abhorrent, violent and inexcusable. Therein, to me, lies the immediate problem.

      The background – more societal/cultural/financial problem is often the root cause of the anger and frustration (as CV suggests).

      I’m not sure I agree with your final point at all. It may or may not be important to the incidence of DV that women are raising boys alone, you’d need to give a bit more substance to that. Your opinion seems to have some sort of bias that sole parent mothers are the targets of DV from men, and produce violent children, because they are sole parenting. Maybe the reverse is true – that they are lone parents because they’ve witnessed or experienced DV. Or maybe it has nothing to do previous or future DV at all.
      • gsays 42.1.1

        28 October 2015 at 9:58 am

        hi miravox,
        what i was getting at in the final comment wasn’t about sole parents.

        the new societal norm seemingly is for children to go into ‘care’ while parent(s) chase a wage.

        the most precious years, the beautiful growth that happens, when the boy/man is made.
        and its happening away from home and inside a business.

        i do not for a moment want to blame or put the boot in on solo mums.
    • Tracey 42.2

      28 October 2015 at 12:17 pm

      UBI may solve part of a problem but given violence is committed by people with well above the UBI there are so many factors in play.
      • gsays 42.2.1

        28 October 2015 at 2:02 pm

        hi tracey, as i said no magic bullets however the ubi is not just about money.

        the equality that comes with it.
        having a ubi would give somesome people some independence, and the oppurtunity to leave a violent environment (adults and adolescents.)

        to be honest with you i am a lot more foccussed on trying to stop the rot occuring than patching up what ia happening now.
        so much so i am contemplating going into early education.
43. gsays 43

    28 October 2015 at 9:22 am

    also, on the panel yesterday a conversation around the “king hit’ punch came up.
    in australia they have had a spate of these leading to fatalities.
    it seems that the media all at the same time stopped refferring to these attacks as a ‘king hit’. now they are called coward punches.

    this moves the focus from the victim to the perpetrater and their actions.
    the same could be done for dv. alter the langauge to put ownership with the aggressor.

    as an aside, i felt the same about ‘roasbuster’. this was a name that (i think) that the young men came up with. so rather than use rb, why not reffer to them as the predatory, gang rapers from west auckland.

    words matter. they matter heaps.
44. Puckish Rogue 44

    28 October 2015 at 9:23 am

    I’ve been working my way through A City Possessed and after what happened to Peter Ellis its not surprising (but also a shame) that more men arn’t in early child care
    • Tracey 44.1

      28 October 2015 at 9:36 am

      …and teaching in general at primary schools. However in Teaching men used to disproportionately hold leadership positions (when compared to their overall representation as teachers)… I don’t know if this still hold true. So there are all kinds of double messages being sent, about men and women in that sector.

      … PR does th book discuss whether homophobia was a main factor, that is, that men/women believing a homosexual will also like little boys sexually?
      • Puckish Rogue 44.1.1

        28 October 2015 at 9:49 am

        Lynley Hood suggests that from the polices point of view Ellis was guilty because hes gay whereas from the feminists pov he was guilty because hes a male

        I would have to say its the scariest book I’ve ever read, if a movie was made of it no one would believe it happened

        Its also worrying that being that it was only 25 years ago the people involved are either still involved on the front lines or in mentoring/teaching roles
        • Naturesong 44.1.1.1

          28 October 2015 at 11:31 am

          All my life I have seen people like you try to publicly distort what feminism actually is.

          Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.
          This is a positive force for men, women and children alike.

          If a woman or man (that you describe here as a feminist) believed that Ellis was guilty because he is a man it’s because they are a bigot (specifically a misandrist), not a feminist.

          I understand that is hard for you to distinguish between these two polar opposites, but it in the interests of a) having a productive conversation, b) not appearing to be an imbecile and c) reducing the level of violence toward women in New Zealand you really should try.
          • Tracey 44.1.1.1.1

            28 October 2015 at 11:33 am

            It may be that Lynley Hood has described some particular women involved that way, and PR is repeating her mislabelling?
            • Naturesong 44.1.1.1.1.1

              28 October 2015 at 11:41 am

              That may be true, I’ve not seen Lynley’s comment (or didn’t provide a link, and I was too lazy to look for one myself).

              But, it is PR that is promulgating here and now that feminism = misandry.

              When you look at the drivers of violence in society, language is a really, really big one.
              • Tracey …

                28 October 2015 at 12:15 pm

                I agree, was just giving him the benefit of the doubt cos he does tend to just believe alot of what he reads…

                I’m particularly thrilled that he is reading a whole book though

                😉 PR
              • Puckish Rogue …

                28 October 2015 at 1:48 pm

                Being that you haven’t read the book and can’t be bothered looking for any links I’ve thoughtfully found one on scoop

                If you can be bothered you should have a read, its quite interesting

                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0202/S00095.htm

                Lynley Hood, author of A City Possessed, attributes (in a National Radio interview with John Campbell on 16 February) the misconviction of Peter Ellis to an unfortunate turn in the evolution of the premises of feminist thought. In the late 1970s, she suggests, feminism became explicitly anti-male. Implicitly, virtue and gender were assumed to be highly correlated. Women by their nature, were virtuous cooperative social beings. Males were assumed to be the antithesis; innate power- seeking individualist competitive predators who simply could never be trusted to be alone with or carers of vulnerable people, in particular children.
                • Naturesong …

                  28 October 2015 at 3:21 pm

                  cheers
          • Naturesong 44.1.1.1.2

            28 October 2015 at 11:49 am

            I quick note about the use of “people like you” in my comment above.

            I do not mean that PR belongs to a tribe and that all his tribe are like that. But rather people who purposely distort language in order to marginalise minority or vulnerable groups.
          • Rosemary McDonald 44.1.1.1.3

            28 October 2015 at 12:14 pm

            “Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.
            This is a positive force for men, women and children alike.”

            Yes.

            The frustrating thing is that extremists, both both ends, seem to have the loudest voices.

            While most of us just get on with ensuring that feminist principals are upheld…at least within our own spheres.

            And while there has been some backsliding….young women are reviving the feminist movement….adapted for today’s social environment.

            Power to them.
          • Puckish Rogue 44.1.1.1.4

            28 October 2015 at 1:35 pm

            What part of this statement is difficult for you

            “Lynley Hood suggests that from the polices point of view Ellis was guilty because hes gay whereas from the feminists pov he was guilty because hes a male”

            I’m stating in a few words what Lynley wrote in a few hundred words not my own personal opinion on the matter

            Take off your ideological blinkers and read what I wrote not what you think I wrote

            PS Fuck you
            • Naturesong 44.1.1.1.4.1

              28 October 2015 at 1:47 pm

              Then you should have quoted it or linked it.

              Or at the very least indicated that you disagreed with the argument.

              Or, said something along the lines of “I think you’ve misunderstood my argument, here is is again from a different angle”

              Um, what ideological blinkers? (serious question)
              • Puckish Rogue …

                28 October 2015 at 2:03 pm

                This is what I wrotre, read it again

                Lynley Hood suggests that from the polices point of view Ellis was guilty because hes gay whereas from the feminists pov he was guilty because hes a male

                I was answering this question from Tracey:

                “… PR does th book discuss whether homophobia was a main factor, that is, that men/women believing a homosexual will also like little boys sexually?”

                See how the question is about what the book says? You see how the question has nothing to do with my opinion?
                • Naturesong …

                  28 October 2015 at 2:08 pm

                  I which case I apologise.

                  I had misinterpreted your comment implicitly agreeing with the framing of feminism = bigotry
                  • Puckish Rogue …

                    28 October 2015 at 2:35 pm

                    Ok so I don’t believe that feminists = misandry however reading the book and, more importantly, the examples given does make me believe that there are some feminists that are actively anti-men.

                    However the main problem seemed to be that a lot of the feminists that actively hated men were in positions to put their predjudices into practice, aided and abetted by (strange bedfellows indeed) the conservative middle class
                    • Naturesong …

                      28 October 2015 at 3:19 pm

                      there are some feminists that are actively anti-men

                      Yup, there are. Doesn’t affect what feminism stands for and tries to achieve.
                      Just that those you mention, if not able to separate their activism from their personal biases, may be poor ambassadors.

                      People are complex.
        • Tracey 44.1.1.2

          28 October 2015 at 11:32 am

          It was shocking at the time. For the record I was a supporter of Peter Ellis in terms of sensing the “chase” was based on some dreaful wrong presumptions about homoexual men and children. The Hager raid suggest, to me anyway, that a similar leaping to conclusions by those with power is still happening.
          • Naturesong 44.1.1.2.1

            28 October 2015 at 12:58 pm

            I strongly disagree. And I think this is important.

            What happened to Peter Ellis can be described as social or mass hysteria, initially driven by subconscious bigotry.

            What has happened and is still happening to Hagar is powerful people using organs of the state to harass a journalist who revealed that powerful people were misusing organs of the state for partisan political purposes with the complicity of a significant number of journalists.
            • gsays 44.1.1.2.1.1

              28 October 2015 at 1:55 pm

              hi naturesong, re peter ellis, i agree about the bigotry being a driver, however there were some powerful organs of state working against him.

              social workers and their ilk, who were hijacked a little by the repressed memory fad.

              the police with the highly editted evience they choose to present.
              also the detective heading the new paedophile section, was driven by justifying his jobs existence and the relationship he was having with the main complainants mother.
              • Naturesong …

                28 October 2015 at 2:05 pm

                Ah, I wasn’t aware of corruption of process by individuals within the police, but that does not surprise me.

                I would put the social workers and repressed memory thing within the umbrella of hysteria.

                It is clear that organs of the state were involved in destroying is reputation, livelihood and locking him up.
                But I don’t think it was driven by powerful people (head of police, govt. ministers etc.) with a specific agenda against him personally, or his profession.

                This distinction is important because while both have very serious outcomes for the victims (Ellis and Hagar) only one of them degrades our democracy in fundamental ways.
45. Richard@Down South 45

    28 October 2015 at 6:31 pm

    So my point was mostly missed

    Any instance of domestic abuse is unacceptable, no matter which gender causes it

    its really that simple…
46. Olwyn 46

    29 October 2015 at 11:04 am

    One can imagine a physical, sporty kind of society where violence is common but everyone is fairly happy. A guy goes round and punches the bloke who cheats him, a woman flings a frying pan at an unfaithful spouse, and so on. Such a society might not appeal to many of us, but it would have its own rules for rendering it functional – “pick on your own size,” “don’t hit anyone when they are down,” etc, etc. Given that the society is functional, these rules would be internalised and assumed as norms.

    We have bought into a system where the strong exploiting the weak is regarded as mere common sense. This not only creates a lot of angry people, it also robs us of a basis for standards toward which to train our young men, so that the respectful treatment of women is something that they can own, rather than have imposed on them from the outside. You cannot control a society that runs on exploitation by merely imposing rules that work within institutions like universities and businesses. People need standards they are able to live up to, and the rights necessary to making their lives bearable. It is worth remembering that very few men want to be the source of DV, even though many are.
47. Rosemary McDonald 47

    29 October 2015 at 12:59 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11536828

    “An Auckland police officer has been accused of two counts of assaulting a woman, but remains at work.

    Constable Alfred Punia Faireka, 39, has been a police officer for more than 10 years but now faces the prospect of losing his job and up to two years in jail on each charge.

    During his brief appearance before Manukau District Court yesterday morning the matters were classified as “family violence”.

    Bail was not opposed by police on the condition that Faireka did not contact the complainant or police witnesses.

    His lawyer Paul Borich indicated his client would be out of the country for two weeks next month and 10 days at the start of December, because of “sporting commitments”.”

    Well, that sends the right message.

    And he gets to travel overseas before a conviction clips his wings.
48. Rosemary McDonald 48

    30 October 2015 at 8:17 pm

    And…..http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/73533863/Wellington-law-firm-partner-slammed-after-getting-rare-diversion-for-kicking-wife

    High flying lawyer assaults wife, gets diversion and name suppression.

    “The man and his victim were understood to still be living together.

    McAtee said, although approval was given by the wife, it can be hard for victims to say no to diversion.

    “I think they would feel possibly worried about repercussions if they didn’t [give approval] and under a lot of emotional pressure when they are then told it could lead to [their partner] losing their job if they didn’t get their diversion.””

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS