|
|
UPDATE: I HAVE RECEIVED A POSITIVE REPLY FROM
THE MINISTER -- SEE BELOW:
(Open Letter to the Minister of Health -- edited)
Dear Mr. Ryall,
Introduction
In the context of the vast bulk of research
that indicates that women are just as violent towards men as the converse
(http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm),
I am writing to draw your attention to the legal liability of the Ministry
of Health for its defamatory, discriminatory and irrational approach
to family violence.
- The Ministry of Health's webpage on Family Violence
(http://www.moh.govt.nz/familyviolence)
contains an advertisement for "White
Ribbon Day," which is a discriminatory, sexist, man-hating campaign
which
ignores female violence against men and pushes the propaganda image
of
family violence as an issue of what men do to women, purely and simply;
- That same page has links to the websites of the National Collective
of
Independent Women's Refuges (www.womensrefuge.org.nz)
and National Network
of Stopping Violence Services (www.nnsvs.org.nz)
, both of which make it
clear that they are not interested in violence towards men by prominently
posting such slogans as "All women and children have the fundamental
right
to live free from fear and violence," in the former case, and "The
safety
of women and children is paramount," in the latter case.
- There are no links to any websites that are about female violence
or
violence towards men.
- There is not the slightest hint on that page that violence by women
against men even exists.
- The Ministry of Health is considered by many to be a trustworthy
organisation. Because the voters and taxpayers of New Zealand have a
right
to expect that the Ministry of Health be a transparent and trustworthy
organisation, they are likely to draw the conclusion from this page
that
Family Violence is just something that men are guilty of perpetrating.
The
Ministry is therefore guilty of defamation.
- The Ministry of Health's screening policy for Family Violence excludes
men, which is sexist and discriminatory.
- On the page (http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-questionsanswers#not-screened),
where the Ministry attempts to justify its sexist and discriminatory
policy
of not screening men for partner abuse, it is forced to admit that female
violence against men exists. It even cites the Feminist, Michael Kimmel,
as acknowledging "that prevalence rates
of males reporting violence from
partners may compare those reported by females."
- The above questions and answers page lists only two (2) studies (Langley
et al. 1997 and Kimmel 2002) in relation to its sexist and discriminatory
policy, which is grossly unprofessional.
- It lists only studies which support its sexist, anti-male approach,
which
is also grossly unprofessional.
- Given that the Domestic Violence Annotated Bibliography cited above
(http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm)
"examines 249 scholarly
investigations: 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses,
which
demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive,
than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners"
(accessed 1 June 2009), why is it (apart from vicious man-hatred and
abuse
of power) that the taxpayer-funded Ministry of Health only cites two
research studies, and both of those are in support of the discriminatory
policy which it has pre-determined, for political and psycho-sexual
reasons?
- Moreover, the Partner Abuse Assessment and Response Flowchart in
the
document Partner Abuse Policy which is downloadable from the webpage
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-vipprogramme-part2#community
makes it clear that patients are to be referred to the police and/or
refuges
in cases deemed appropriate. Therefore the Ministry of Health's agenda
is
not just (or even principally) about health - it is about social work
and
law enforcement. This social work and law enforcement intervention is
denied to men, unless they are deemed to show signs of being abused.
This
social work and law enforcement intervention has nothing to do with
how
likely men and women are to be injured. It is a police matter - not
a
Ministry of Health matter - to decide what cases of family violence
should
be prosecuted. The Ministry of Health is not competent to screen victims
of
family violence and decide who should be referred to the police - especially
if that screening is done arbitrarily and discriminatorily on the basis
of sex.
- In addition, the document "Recognising and Responding to
Partner Abuse,"
which is downloadable from the webpage
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5136
, includes the so-called "Power
and Control Wheel", which is discriminatory, sexist, anti-male,
unscientific
propaganda.
- Moreover, the webpage http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-vipprogramme-part2#community
states the sexist lie that "community agencies are the family
violence intervention experts." In fact, community agencies
such as Women's Refuge
have to meet no standards of intellect or scientific knowledge whatsoever
and do not allow men on their premises. This means that they are free
from
any objective scrutiny and can be dominated by moronic, sexist man-haters.
- It is clear (based on my knowledge of the Domestic Violence propaganda
industry) that the Ministry of Health has predetermined that men will
not be
routinely screened for partner abuse, because that would generate official
statistics that would show men to be victims of Family Violence, which
the
vicious man-haters in the Ministry of Health want to avoid at all costs.
-
To support this vicious sexism, the Ministry
of Health have a
two-pronged strategy: (i) to pretend to the uninitiated that female
violence
against men does not exist; (ii) to present the more curious with
the bare
minimum of research information, carefully selected to include only
the
research that support its predetermined policy.
The Ministry of Health's Justification for its Sexism and Discrimination:
The policy justification page referred to above
(http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-questionsanswers#not-screened),
states that men will only be screened if there is a "suspicion"
that they
have been abused. The reason given for this is that "Partner
violence for
men does not meet the criteria for a health-screening programme due
to lack
of evidence of health impact. A New Zealand study demonstrates that
males
who have been hit by females partners report needing no first aid, medical
or hospital treatment compared with 9% of women who were hit by their
male
partners (Langley et al 1997)." However, quite apart from
the fact that
this is just one study looked at in isolation, there are a lot of problems
with using this study as the rationale for anti-male discrimination.
I list
these problems below:
Langley et al.'s Drawbacks
- First of all, the study focussed on physical injury, whereas the
Ministry of Health's webpage http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-vipprogramme-part1#consequences
refers also to mental health harm from family violence. In addition,
, the Partner Abuse Assessment and Response Flowchart in the document
Partner
Abuse Policy which is downloadable from the webpage
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-vipprogramme-part2#community
makes it clear that suicide risk is one possible mental health outcome
of
partner abuse. Therefore, even if men do not seek medical help as much
as
women for physical injuries caused by family violence, their mental
health
may be suffering - although they may be unaware of that fact.
- Secondly, the Langley study only dealt with 21-year-olds, and cannot
be
automatically assumed to be representative of the population at large.
- Thirdly, there are New Zealand and international studies which show
that
men are just as likely as, or more likely than women to be injured in
family
violence, for example Capaldi, D. M, Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W.
(2004),
Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001), Fergusson, D. M., Horwood,
L. J., &
Ridder, E. M. (2005) (a New Zealand study), Hoff, B. H. (1999), McLeod,
M.
(1984), O'Leary, K. D., Slep, A. M. S., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi,
M.
(2008), Sorenson, S. B., Upchurch, D. M., & Shen, H. (1996), Straus,
M. A.,
Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996), Straus,
M. A., &
Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November), Vasquez, D., & Falcone, R. (1997).
These
studies cover a much wider age-range than the one study cited by the
Ministry of Health. They are all cited and summarised in the Domestic
Violence Annotated Bibliography cited above (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm).
- Fourthly, there are methodological problems with the Langley study.
The
Method section of the report is unprofessionally brief, and does not
explain
the reasons for the choice of methodology, which involved interviews
by one
of two female interviewers. Obviously, the facts that both interviewers
were female and that interviews were used instead of questionnaires
make it
possible that extraneous factors biased the results. I myself was once
interviewed by a female health researcher about colon cancer screening
and
found that, when I gave an answer which was obviously not the one which
she
wanted, she indicated this by her manner, and gave me a chance to change
my
response!
- The article by Kimmel is not primary research, but merely a survey
and
interpretation of research results, and it was published in the journal
Violence Against Women, which (as can be seen from its title)
is not even
interested in violence against men, and can therefore not be a credible
or
unbiased source of information in this area.
Kimmel's Arguments
Kimmel bases his argument around the following points:
- He claims that women's violence is mainly in self-defence, whereas
Capaldi, D. M, Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004), for example,
finds that
"Young women were observed to initiate
physical aggression toward their
partners more frequently than were the young men."
- He claims that women are more severely injured than men are. Although
some research has produced that finding, Capaldi, D. M, Kim, H. K.,
&
Shortt, J. W. (2004), Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001), Fergusson,
D. M.,
Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005) (a New Zealand study), Hoff,
B. H.
(1999), McLeod, M. (1984), O'Leary, K. D., Slep, A. M. S., Avery-Leaf,
S.,
& Cascardi, M. (2008), Sorenson, S. B., Upchurch, D. M., & Shen,
H. (1996),
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996),
Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November), Vasquez, D.,
& Falcone,
R. (1997) find the opposite to be the case, as I have stated above.
- He says that the research which finds women's violence to be equal
to
men's violence does not include sexual violence. That is true, but that
does not amount to denying the existence of sexual violence. It is also
not
clear that more sexual violence is committed by men than by women. As
a
victim of female sexual violence myself, I have formed the clear impression
that the Feminists who dominate sexual violence politics are just not
interested in researching or highlighting female sexual violence.
- Kimmel says that the research which finds women's violence to be
equal
to men's violence does not include assaults by ex-spouses. That is probably
true, as well. However, that does not deny the reality of assaults by
ex-spouses, and there is no reason why they should be included in research
which is about people who are living together.
- Kimmel claims that men use violence to control women. However, neither
he nor anyone else has ever proved that men do this more than women
use
violence to control men. All that happens is that Feminists interpret
situations in an anti-male way, and interpret men's actions as being
about
"power and control," whereas a pro-male interpretation of
the data would
give a totally different result. As I point out in my webpage
http://equality.netfirms.com/because.html
, if you search Google for
"evidence for the Power and Control model" or "evidence
for the Duluth
model" -- you get zero results.
I suggest that all the women in the Ministry
of Health be sacked forthwith.
Not only would that save a lot of money, but it would drastically reduce
the
irrationality, discrimination, sexism and stupidity now practised by
that
Ministry. The next step would be to eliminate all the men in the Ministry
who were only there because they could put up with - or even flourish
in -
that atmosphere of irrationality, discrimination, sexism and stupidity.
Then the men should be hired who had been unable or unwilling to work
in
that environment of irrationality, discrimination, sexism and stupidity.
If
the States Services Commission is unwilling to carry this out, it should
be
abolished.
REPLY FROM MINISTER:
|
