Scum
Physical violence against your partner is bad enogh, but what sort of scum assaults his partner, when she is pregnant?
Sadly, around 10% of women, according to University of Auckland research, are assaulted at leaset once when pergnant. And this is physical assault – not some wider psychological definition of abuse.
The natural instinct to protect a pregnant woman is so strong, that I really can not understand how anyone could ever overcome that to hit a pregnant woman. Any domestic violence is unacceptable, but violence involving a pregnant partner is even more difficult to fathom.
I wonder what links there are between domestic violence to a pregnant mother, and child abuse once the child is born? I suspect there is a nasty cycle of abuse and violence there.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I blogged on this yesterday. There is a very strong link between domestic violence and child abuse. I usually advise victims of domestic violence to leave at once as the pillock responsible will do it again and is likely to do it to the children too.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
At the risk of provoking howls of outrage and accusations of being a victim basher, one would observe that there are really some circumstances where getting pregnant should be discarded as an option. It is not as if the technologology was not readily available. Abusive relationships and the cycle of violence would seem to be becoming more deeply entrenched amid the very people who are multiplying at the greatest rate.
I was also disturbed by the finding that smoking while pregnant is also strongly correlated with violence. This described by the report’s author on radio (ZB) yesterday as being caused by a desire to de-stress and escape from the abuse.
It wasn’t discussed and I’m no sociologist but could it not also be an environmental effect where those who don’t care for their bodies or don’t care enough for the future of the foetus they are carrying and are surrounded by others equally uneducated and uncaring are more prone to be in relationships where abuse is the norm rather than the exception. ????
August 14th, 2008 at 10:20 am
We live in a culture that has been socially engineered to pay no respect to unborn children.
Get used to it.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
David, I would agree with you but I have serious doubts about the so called research. Do you remember the government funded Hitting Home report that got awarded a Bent Spoon Award by the NZ Skeptics. The study was totally unscientific. You might not remember during a Telethon over 20 years ago the Herald ran an ad with a picture of four baby girls with the caption 1 in 4 of these girls will be sexually abused by the time they are 18 – half by their own fathers. This turned out absolute rubbish. Not surprisingly some man hating lesbian was involved in the “research”. Typical dyke – she blamed others for misinterpreting figures.
I have not looked the figures but they seem too outrageous to be credible. How many women do you know who were physically assaulted while pregnant?
I would like others to say in they think these figures are credible.
It seems heterosexual males are always fair game. If someone came up with some good research that showed homosexuals disproportionately sexually against adolescents would you be so quick to call them scum. I bet you would first challenge the research.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
is anyone brave enough to analyse the demographics – ethnicity, relationship type (married, de facto etc), children to other partners etc? there will be patterns, and we need to honestly identify and manage ‘at risk’ groups if we want to bring an end to this disgusting behaviour.
edit: Chuck Bird – I agree. But remember the definition of assault can be manipulated to deliver a desired statistical outcome. If a teacher restrains an out-of-control child in a classroom that is technically assault.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Most disgusting is the justice system if failing to send to the right message. Yesterday as this research was been reported, there was also a small article on one of these scumbags who assulted his pregnant partner a second time while pregnant and still did not get sent to jail.
“A Tauranga man has avoided jail despite punching his 39-weeks pregnant partner in the face, side and legs – the second time he had bashed her during the pregnancy.” He also had other priors as well.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=178&objectid=10526668
It is bad enough he wasn’t sent to jail the first time, but to do it again and still not be behind bars!!@!
August 14th, 2008 at 10:50 am
The issue of domestic violence isn’t new. Every event of domestic violence is horrendous and no domestic violence should be protected to a continuum. Individually I agree with David Farrah that there is something deeply disturbing and demonstrating an incomprehensible ignorance where any individual considers it their domain to assault in any form a pregnant woman.
But these comments and the understandable disgust are simply repetitious and in no way address the issue in any manner that solutions will be provided to the considerable problem of domestic violence. Individuals have been raking their brains for an age to figure out how to effectively interfere with domestic violence. The thing that would be the best start to be effective would be to begin to exercise the truth.
Recently there has been an increased interest taken and campaigns entered to challenge domestic violence, yet these campaigns have been ambushed by a hidden agenda to capitalise the perpetuation of a myth. That myth is that it is only men who commit domestic violence. This, advertised and presented as fact just simply does not stack up. Women are terribly violent as well; it is just more simply that men are less inclined to report the incidences of women’s violence. The question I promote in this is whether any would challenge that women too are domestically violent and secondly why shouldn’t this violence be challenged with the same abhorrence as the violence committed by men.
The claim that I make above that we will not compete with domestic violence has got to be strong when we consider the effects of challenging inequality demonstrated against women, race, homosexuals, the disabled or those with mental health problems. These issues are challenged and resources put to mitigate those discriminations have effect. Look at the way new buildings are required to put in ramps for wheelchair access. This is to state that while we refuse to focus on women’s violence as a disguised issue we do not focus on the problem at all, we just make it worse by grinding the perception of men into scapegoat territory, making the events that we do not want to look easier to excuse.
The event we do not want to look at is how women’s claim for equality directly compromises the child
The following are two examples of where this ignorance focussing on men exists. I, (at least) have a complaint in with the Advertising Standards Authority (which has been recognised as valid) against a recent advertising campaign called New Zealand’s greatest Morning Tea. There was model of a cake on the advertisement and as I remember four incidents of domestic violence depicted by figurines. The figurines doing the hitting were all men. An image like this gives a fairly straight forward view to any viewer that domestic violence is a male problem. So we are not prepared to engage domestic violence as a problem that is real, rather than how we want it to be observed.
The second issue is about a complaint I have made with the Broadcasting Standards Authority relative to a programme run on Nine to Noon on February 27. My complaint is obvious and fair. The Family Court lawyer Catriona McLennan who was invited to speak in regards to a review being undertaken on the Domestic Violence Act just let rip. I have included the information I wrote from my recent update of 12 August 2008 to demonstrate how far away from reality New Zaland is when it comes to dealing with the real problem: The real problem is that we are trying to pretend that women’s responsibility to children is being undermined for their want to be individual and that this attitude is taking a heavy, heavy toll on our society.
7. Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA): On July 29 I went into the High Court of Wellington for a case management conference appealing against a decision of the BSA which stated that a discussion between Family Court lawyer, Catriona McLennan and Nine to Noon host Kathryn Ryan was not to be considered as, whether or not it was gender discriminatory (which was the substance of the complaint) but whether or not it required review as a matter of balance as the complaint also stated was lacking. The appeal is unusual in form. The appeal has to be made against the Broadcaster which in this case is Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and not the BSA. This means that RNZ are arguing (and paying for) the case established by the BSA and that their responsibility is fully encompassed under the wing of the BSA’s decision.
Firstly, RNZ responded saying that the language used by Catriona McLennan was not gender discriminatory and was instead gender neutral. This comment was blatantly and simply incorrect and further offensive because RNZ had read the transcripts. I stress more offensive because there can be no doubt that gender discriminatory language was used and that a denial of such clear evidence suggests something more deeply sinister for the protection against a fact. Clearly the language used by the guest demonised men as the perpetrators of domestic violence.
Secondly, the reply from the BSA suggested that the review of (not cause) domestic violence legislation did not constitute a discussion of a controversial nature and so there was no demand of RNZ to be balanced in its presentation. This reply is as well deeply offensive. This is because the opinions of those many fathers over so many, many, many years who have cried out, (or worse) that gender discrimination in family law is wounding of families and is wounding of a nation and is deeply detrimental to a public interest have simply been excused as not in existence. Such men have become an irrelevancy in society. They/we have apparently been consumed by modern thought.
Thirdly, the argument stated that even if RNZ had to meet with the threshold of balance the opinion was only one of one lawyer. This is wrong for two reasons. The first is that the presenter Kathryn Ryan has demonstrated in other interviews (one can be produced for evidence) a willingness to challenge views that compromise the fairness of a presentation. The second is more alarming. RNZ is under legal obligation to promote the maintenance of law and order. Quite clearly the law states that gender discrimination, directly or indirectly is unlawful to a body with the responsibilities of RNZ.
Fourthly, the argument is that there is no requirement for RNZ to look at the issue of gender discrimination and only at the matter of balance. This argument is more ridiculous than offensive. The law states that the BSA and the RNZ must review a complaint in part as well as in whole. So what were they talking about, of course they had to look and consider that part of the complaint that was gender discriminatory and if proved to be gender discriminatory reflected on as against the law?
Fifthly, the complaint was not read properly and thereby not judged properly in the first instance. My complaint read that the lawyer discriminated by claiming that only men committed domestic violence. The BSA read the complaint to say that not only women were the victims of domestic violence. We were looking at completely different matters. Of course men can be the victims of domestic violence; there is no question about that fact. It is not a gender issue where the victim is not an offender. A victim is a victim. An offender is different from a victim because an offender is the one who commits the offence. If one group does that more than another then society has a problem with that group. To make unsubstantiated claim that the perpetration of domestic violence is singularly the domain of men is outright wrong, improper and deeply misleading.
Sixthly, the lawyer for RNZ recognised that my appeal had been filed incorrectly and she was right. I apologised and re-filed the appeal properly. Then when the lawyer was supposed to file the RNZ memorandum two working days before the case management conference she instead filed it after 5pm the night before, causing me extraordinary difficulty preparing for a conference from which I was already an alien.
Finally, So far, still, RNZ and the BSA seem reluctant to yield from the objective principles (fact) and prefer instead to dwell on the subjective (how they feel) matter. Instead they persist with litigation and I have litigated filed again with the Court preparing for the hearing bringing to the proceedings the expert evidence (about neglect) of Allan Harvey of the Union of Fathers, and the expert evidence (on gender discrimination) of a New Zealand professor.. Additionally, if it is necessary, I will subpoena Kathryn Ryan as a hostile witness. There is no room to lose this argument.
My next appearance unless the BSA or RNZ concede the point is on August 18 and the substantive hearing on November 6, probably two days before the election.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I made a mistake in writing what I believe to be the “real problem”. The word I should have used between the words pretend and woman should have been ‘and’ not ‘that’.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I’m with Chuck on this one, while nobody would defend violence against woman (pregnant or not) I do wonder why we insist on beating up on Heterosexual men in this fashion, I also remember the disgusting way that the last Telethon peddled the lie about sexual abuse.
In my more cynical moments I often wonder if this is all part of the grand plan by the sisterhood to emasculate men.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Getstaffed, worthy sentiments no doubt. And how exactly would you “manage” at risk families? Most of them are already “managed” ad nauseam by assorted tax funded agencies. Hasn’t worked eh? Also, we should not be surprised that scum who beat their partners and children, also beat pregnant women bearing their unborn children. In the brute’s mind, what would really be the difference?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
When I was pregnant with my son I spent 6 weeks in Wellington Hospital prior to his delivery.
During that time I was horrified at the number of pregnant women who came onto the ward who had been bashed by their partners.
It was a nightly occurrence. Often multiple cases in one evening. It was truly shocking. I have no doubt these stats are real.
I have to say it was from what I saw, over a period of 6 weeks, mostly Indian, Polynesian and Maori women who were subjected to this terrible violence. I wondered why this was so.
Like DPF I have also wondered if there is a correlation between, women being battered during pregnancy and assault on the children of these partnerships.
Perhaps Sue Bradford might like to take up this research which may actually contribute to reducing child abuse in NZ instead of picking on parents who smack their children.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Quote from Theodore Dalrymple:
“Of course, I had traveled in many countries that were in the throes of civil wars, and knew something of the inhumanity of man to man, but nothing had quite prepared me for the level of extreme violence in personal relationships that I encountered in a country that was enjoying sustained economic growth and unprecedented prosperity…What I saw was human conduct as it becomes when the requirement to conform to inherited social restraints no longer exists, when it is left to the whim of individuals how to behave. The result is an urban hell.”
August 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“The natural instinct to protect a pregnant woman is so strong, that I really can not understand how anyone could ever overcome that to hit a pregnant woman.”
There are very few “natural” things left in the world that are not influenced by a drug or a unexamined thought. I can image a hypothetical domestic situation where a pregnant woman is hit, easily. Anger and violence always win out over touchy feely elements of the mind. Most of the problem with the examinations of domestic violence is that they’re aimed at domestic violence. It’s a bit like anger management classes – once you get to anger, it’s too late. All that happens is the cycle begins again from the first stage – equilibrium. To challenge the result that is domestic violence, you need to challenge the environment it grows in and the unchecked emotional and mental causes that power it. Before every incidence of anger and violence there are several moments where the anger can be defused. If the environment contains any stimulant or chemical imbalance, your job just got ten times harder. If the person has unaddressed emotional issues your job just got 100 times harder. Saying “it’s not OK” over and over is a piss poor intervention. Not a shit-show of making any change with that solution.
As far as researching race/ethic group etc, there is no point. Even the argument of “targetted assistence” is flawed when it comes to basic human traits. Everyone is susceptable to negetive emotions, anger and violence given the right triggers. The triggers remain the same regardless of skin colour or where you were born or where/who you worship.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:39 am
David, as someone who deals with statistics on a daily basis, I thought you would have picked up on the huge flaw in this research – that most of the women were already being beaten up.
http://blairmulholland.typepad.com/mulholland_drive/2008/08/earl-grey-hurricanes.html
August 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Some Christian link this to women aborting children being murder and just as unfathomable and start a debate – go go go!
August 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
mara, yes a fair point re: ‘management’. guess what I’m suggesting is that PC policy which fails to direct resources to where the risk is highest… is a complete waste of time, a waste of our money and does nothing to stop the abuse.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Actually Reb
I think you will find that in general these are the women, who want to keep their babies.
They often have a low opinion of themselves anyway, which is why they allow themselves to be treated by their partners in this way.
The women who abort their babies do not normally do so because their partners are physically abusive.
The women I saw who were being brought into Wellington Hospital were very pregnant, often 28 weeks plus.
Well past the abortion limit.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Big Bruv,
The Care of Children Act (COC) gives license for single women or homosexual women to have children, using assisted reproductive technology (ART) excusing the child the protection of their right of association with their natural, biological and genetic male parent. The child is protected to this association under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and secondly, if not more directly under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Art 9. The child under the UNCROC is protected from discrimination of any kind yet to remove from the child their rights of association with their dad is about as direct a discrimination as you can get.
In response to your inquiry about emasculating men there is no question about this. The first paragraph is about a breach of law to effectively remove from the household the need for a male. A child needs a male influence in order to associate with those (any) genetic and gender trait. If the child does not have access to this natural influence then the child is placed at a disadvantage. Those who disagree have no reason to disagree other than for their own bias, bigotry or discriminative behaviours. Why shouldn’t a child be entitled and protected to a male influence?
Interestingly as I have written previously the legislation (when as a bill) was not implemented into law in the proper manner and form requirement by the then Attorney General Margaret Wilson. This created a crisis in the constitution that is being conveniently overlooked by all I have described this information,(including the Court of Appeal – who just cheated the truth – within the proper period) trying to pretend that no-one really has any responsibility to observe their responsibilities to the constitution.
The COC is about setting up a platform for homosexuality to breed. This is no convoluted conspiracy theory this is very serious fact. After this came the Civil Union Act.
Bye bye blokes – your not needed anymore – the kids are all right without you, you horrible violent thing!
August 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Bye bye blokes – your not needed anymore – the kids are all right without you, you horrible violent thing!”
Funny you should say that. Seems that the “mature” removal of the father is confusing the mothers when they try to be fathers:
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/keeping-mum/2008/8/14/raising-blokes/?c_id=1502464
Not so mature afterall.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Yes it is a very serious problem — but what is the cause and what do we do about it?
The first problem is in the word “partner”. It has been established for some years that people living together as opposed to marrying are more likely to have violence in the relationship. Living together is not trial marriage, it is more like “trial divorce”.
So the first thing to do if we are serious about this issue is to return to marriage. A woman who gets married is far less likely to suffer domestic abuse than a woman who is in a de facto relationship.
The second thing is to return to the 10 Commandments as a basis for our morality. “Honour your father and mother”, “do not commit adultery”, and the rest of the Commandments are the basis for a sound moral society.
I believe that a person who lives by these Commandments is someone who thereby develops the key quality of moral restraint, which is vital for any successful relationship.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Reb -
The argument that abortion is murder is countered by legislation. However what is not countered by legislation where the Domestic Violence Act is a jurisdiction of its own is that abortion is domestic violence and no domestic violence will be tolerated. The age of the child cannot be used to give fair reason because the Domestic Violence does not limit age in this way. It assumes the law through the term ‘relationship’ rather than whether or not the human tissue is yet considered a living being.
So yes – women in New Zealand allow to be beaten theirs and men’s sons or duaghters, to the point of infanticide, around 18,000 times a year. We just want to pretend that it isn’t domestic violence because that would be terribly inconvenient in a world where women would state that they are allowed to be ‘equal’.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
goodgod, that is just more PC nonsense. It sound like the so called researcher followed your line of thinking. Are you trying to get us to believe that there is no correlation between various forms of domestic violence and one’s race, ethnic group, religion or social economic group? If that is the case tell us how many Christians or for that matter agnostics kill their daughters for going out with someone they do not approve of? How many parents with a income of 100k plus stick their children in close driers.
This non targeting policy is just more PC crap. First Labour and now National want to test ever baby for HIV. I would like to how many babies born to married New Zealand born parents have been with HIV. I strongly suspect none. Rather than offend some recent arrivals from high risk areas they ask every women to accept having their baby tested for HIV.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Ah Scum – a favourite word around here!
Makes a change to see it used for once in a sense that, while still not very rational, is at least a bit more fair and justified than the usual (IMHO)!
August 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Chuck Bird, you’re displaying anger. Are you a drunken moari? Using your logic you can’t be a christian.
Guess what, you get angry. So do I. I’m not moari and I’m not a christian.
Before you just got angry at PC issues, did you stop to examine the escalation of your anger?
Nope.
Do you know why you are so peeved at PC issues? Where does that come from? Problems in your past? Doing anything about it, or do you frequent environments like online blogsites that hold discussions on things that you can rail against?
That’s called an anger cycle, Chuck. Why seek out things to make you mad, Chuck? Do you control your anger?
Better get targetted poster sent round to your place. You’re “at risk”, just like the moari you target.
Do you think any of your fabled “basher maori” are stopping to think about that extra beer they open tonight? Do you reckon they’ll stay in and rest since they had a hard day at work instead of getting pissed? Do you reckon they’ll go fishing this weekend and ponder why they’re so mad and resolve to do something about it? Are they any different to you, Chuck? Did you grow up in the same country as them, in the same schools, exposed to the same society? Did you see the same things?
Don’t come the perfectionist with me, Chuck. Without exception everyone on this blog displays emotional issues and anger from time to time. Check the demerits section. Those currently on leave will come back on do it again, just like the last time. They could be out challenging their personal flaws but I reckon most of them are just being angry on a different blog. Are they all drunken moari? Nope, they’re human, Chuck.
But ignore the truth, Chuck. Easier to project your issues onto that shadowy “moari basher” and call any questioning of your delusion “PC Crap”.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
goodgod, Good God, what are you trying to say?
August 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Scott:
“So the first thing to do if we are serious about this issue is to return to marriage. A woman who gets married is far less likely to suffer domestic abuse than a woman who is in a de facto relationship.”
This is a ridiculous proposition. Marriage does not instantly instill a new respect for humanity and a violent de facto partner will be a violent husband. You are confusing correlation with cause and effect.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Ellgee thanks for your comments. It is not a ridiculous proposition at all. A man who gets up in front of all his family and all his friends and promises to commit to this one woman for life — solemnly before God — that is a commitment. A guy who shrugs his shoulders and says let’s move in together — that is not commitment — that is nothing really. At best the man promises to stay with the woman as long as they are both happy.
There have been lots of studies — and I know Liberals love studies — that show that marriage is positively correlated with better family life outcomes than de facto relationships. For example children growing up with their married biological parents are much less likely to suffer abuse than those who grow up in de facto households.
Also if we go back 50 years domestic violence was a lot less than it is now. I believe this is for two reasons. First of all couples were married and committed to each other for life. Secondly whether consciously or unconsciously most people believed in the 10 Commandments as an objective moral law for living.
So marriage and good morals protect women. Casual relationships and no morals remove that protection.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I am sorry, but I don’t for a second believe that 1 in 10 pregnant women are assaulted, who took the survey the university of Auckland feminist division?
Its like Cindy Kiro saying 230 000 kiwi kids are in poverty. Poverty according to who and what standard I wonder, I suppose if you measure poverty by how many kids have the latest play station it might be correct.
And any way it depends on what stage of pregnancy the assault occured, I thought it dosen’t matter about unborn humans in the first trimester?
What dopey logic our country opperates in.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Shunda: If you click the light blue text in Mr Farrar’s article with your mouse, you shall find out who conducted the research.
Hint: it was not the “feminist division”…
August 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Stronger still, I would suggest, is the natural instinct of a mother to protect her offspring. Yet we have an equally sorry litany of cases where the mother has harmed, been complicit in harming, or stood by and watched someone else harm her children (and then gone out and partied with the perpetrator).
It’s all very well to decry this horrific trend amongst heterosexual males, and indeed it needs examining and work done on preventing it. But without accepting it as a broader social trend towards the inexorable disappearance of all that is good and noble in the human character, it’s just another PC exercise to explore “why all men are bastards and some are bigger bastards than others”.
Violence toward women is terrible, but no more nor less terrible than violence towards children. And they are both not the problem, merely symptoms of the problem.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Rex, I disagree violence towards children particular very young children is far worse than violence against women. Women can provoke and incident, many times they initiate violence themselves and they have a lot more options – then can leave and they can certainly ask for help. This is something a young child cannot do and to some degree a man cannot do. The police seldom take seriously female initiated domestic violence.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Skeptical as to the validity of these kinds of study. As several posters have pointed out, it all hinges on the definition of assault and the statistical methods, study design etc. Often with these things we get big headlines and then a few paras (if we’re lucky) when the ‘research’ gets discredited for the pc bollix it often is. 1 in 10 pregnant woman assaulted? Smells like BS. On a side note, one could almost get a laugh out of people crying crocodile tears for the unborn child in these cases, yet then leap to defend abortion. Talk about defending the indefensible.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The police seldom take seriously female initiated domestic violence.
Probably because most of it is quite trivial. Women can be, of course, abusive in their relationships, but they are seldom physically violent and usually lack the strength to cause real damage.
Child abuse and spouse abuse have different causes. Child abuse is very anger related, hence it is made substantially worse by stimulants such as methamphetamine. Spouse abuse has little to do with anger and everything to do with dominance and control.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
LabourMustBeLiquidated: Skeptical as to the validity of these kinds of study. As several posters have pointed out, it all hinges on the definition of assault and the statistical methods, study design etc
If we are going to start debating how much violence it takes before it becomes assault, then we have already lost the battle against domestic violence.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
The study is crap, and intelligent people should not be so easily sucked in by some group with an ake to grind.
Labour really has dumbed this country down a peg or two.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“If we are going to start debating how much violence it takes before it becomes assault, then we have already lost the battle against domestic violence”
I don’t think so. I have read literature from a few groups in this country who define assault in such broad terms that anybody, male or female, could be defined as an abuser. For example, I read a pamphlet by womens refuge that defined “looking at you funny” as assault.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
LabourMBL, true. Assault has some weird definitions, but a dead, beaten child is fairly unequivocal, I’d have thought.
Getstaffed. You are right that we scatter guilt and resources about so as to avoid making harsh, non PC observations about the major areas of offence. But even if we zeroed “resources” into these, what the hell would that achieve. What the fuck is a resource anyway? Given the massive amount of cash Govts. have divested in “resources” to no effect so far,I feel entitled to ask the question. A Fascist society devoted to child protection might save the children but we would not want to live like that, would we. You know, door knocking, removal to institutions, right-think programming etc. Sad as I am to say this, I believe that the awful abuse of some children is the price that society at large is prepared to pay for the continuation of a lifestyle that we have come to crave.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
MacDoctor, you seem to be very selective. LabourMustBeLiquidated points out what qualifies as violence when it comes to man assaults female and you argue against his reasonable point and in an earlier post you trivialise female assaults male type of violence.
If women are so frail as you seem to believe should they be allowed to take a combat role in the military?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
10% of pregnant woman abused were pregnant when abused?
Dear Dr Fanslow
Your study has been discussed on Kiwiblog
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/08/scum-3.html#comments
Like on the Blog and Kerre Woodham on talkback I am very skeptical of your findings. It would be good if the full study was posted on the blog so people good decide if it had any validity unlike the Hitting Home Report the government paid for just to cast men in a bad light.
It would be good if you defined violence – both physical and sexual that you mentioned on the radio. Have you any breakdown for ethnicity, religion, social economic group nd marital status?
I have posted this email on Kiwiblog. I will post any reply there as well.
I as well many on the blog will await your response with interest.
Kind regards
Chuck Bird
August 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Chuck Bird: I’m sure the University of Auckland researchers will be very concerned to know that their work has been reviewed and found to be lacking by the commentators on a political blog!
Similarly; whenever the rally of New Zealand comes to town, I like to stand near the pit lane tents and offer the Subaru mechanics my worldly advice on where they’re doing it wrong. They’re grateful, and they hang on my every word
August 14th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
RRM, using your logic we should blindly accepted the Hitting Home Report and the rubbish about 1 in 4 girls being sexually abused by the time they are 18 – half by their own fathers.
Plenty of people listened to the so called experts and invested their life savings in finance companies. I prefer to think for myself.
It is a sad fact that many researchers are corrupt and they come you with the expected conclusion and they are assured future funding.
This why so many so called experts support the global warming nonsense.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
RRM
You may swallow this collosal load of tripe all you like.
So what, if it came from University of Auckland
There is a study to back up every opinion in this country at the moment, studies mean nothing anymore.
Its really not that hard to pick porky pies.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
RRM,
now there is an interesting comment!
Seeing as how you have implied you will not be welcomed by Subaru, should the rally come to town and you infer that Chuck is punching above his weight, why not consider that a rally may be coming to Wellington and that if you should decide to attend on Father’s Day, at parliament, then your view would be counted and your comments likely accepted as profound.
However, given that heterosexual men have clearly been marginalised, vilified and demonised over an extraordinary period, they; thereby, instead, tending to argue about who could be the best and why they should be so strong (failing to co-ordinate any power), it seems more likely to me that only the same old tenacious few, who have been battling/punching in the pits for so many years would risk their opinions against a crew who could confuse a product to mean they own the right to win.
This is to say that torque could be cheap.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
RRM, FYI I just had a brief chat with Janet Fanslow. She was very pleasant and expects to send me the research in about a week. People do not need a title before their name or a degree after it for their opinion to be valid. Most Ministers of the Crown have no formal qualifications relating to their portfolio. Can you remember the last Minster of Health who was a doctor?
MacDoctor may be a qualified doctor but his opinions seem much more based on his personal and political philosophy than good research. He might think that the injury or pain a woman can and does inflict is trivial. I know a few women who if they punched him in the eye would close his eye and if did not respond quickly and decisively they would close the other one and he would be temporally blinded. I wonder where he has practiced.
I accept that on average women would usually come off second beat in a fight if a man did not pull any punches. However, there are plenty of Maori and P I women who could do a lot of damage in a fight.
I see he tries to link male assaults female with male assaults child. However, he ignores the fact that the majority of serious child assaults and murders occur while the child is the custody of the mother. It may not be inflicted by the mother but a boyfriend with a violent criminal record a mile long.
I cannot remember the names in this case but I sure everyone will remember the case of the little girl who went missing on the way to school. Her mother’s P addicted lover turned out to be the killer. The girl’s real father expressed concern about his daughter living in the same house with the criminal and he was ignored. This is not an isolated case. When a real father complains about abuse of his child he is often ignore.
The problem of domestic violence will not be solved until the evidence is looked at honestly. I do not maintain that it cause mainly by women. However, anyone who maintains that it caused 90% by men are part of the problem not the solutuion