(Open Letter to the Minister of Science and Innovation)
Dear Mr. Joyce,
I am writing to you in your capacity as (I think) the highest ranking
Minister who has had the benefit of a scientific education. The topic
I am writing about is just one simple (but very important) aspect
of a somewhat complex issue. I want to keep it simple, so that no
side-issues prevent you from addressing it directly. The reason I
am writing to you about it is that I believe this issue requires the
attention of a scientific mind, because some other minds have proved
themselves inadequate.
“…it is important to remember
that family violence is heavily gendered. The predominant pattern
is one of male violence directed at a female partner…. the
percentage of females who experienced offences by their partner
was not much higher than for males, but females:
• ….
• ….
• were more likely to report fear and other emotional impacts
as a result of the violence.”
In other words, this webpage is claiming that there are three reasons
(given in the three bullet points) for saying that the predominant
pattern is one of male violence directed at a female partner, despite
the fact that the percentage of females who experienced offences by
their partner was not much higher than for males.
For present purposes, I am ignoring the first two reasons (which
I will return to at a later date), and focusing on the third reason.
Logically, does the fact that women are more likely than men to report
fear and other emotional impacts as a result of the violence constitute
a reason to conclude that the predominant pattern is one of male violence
directed at a female partner?
Surely, if women tend to be more fearful and more emotional than
men, then that is women’s problem, and does not constitute a
reason to conclude that the predominant pattern of family violence
is one of male violence directed at a female partner! This reasoning
indicates gross intellectual incompetence and gross anti-male sexism
on the part of the Ministry of Social Development, irrespective of
whether or not the other two bullet points mentioned valid and relevant
points, which is a separate issue.
The article Hall, Geoffrey B. C.; Witelson, Sandra F.; Szechtman,
Henry; Nahmias, Claude, Sex differences in functional activation
patterns revealed by increased emotion processing demands. Neuroreport:
9 February 2004 - Volume 15 - Issue 2 - pp 219-223 concludes as follows:
“men tend to modulate their reaction
to stimuli, and engage in analysis and association, whereas women
tend to draw more on primary emotional reference.”
As another example, I could mention that I saw a party of schoolchildren
on the television news (in 2014, I think), who had been walking near
one of the North Island volcanoes, when it happened to erupt suddenly.
You could hear girls screaming, but no noise from the boys, as the
party fled from the volcano.
As a further example, I could mention the case of three National
Party MPs bungy-jumping at the time of the National Party conference
earlier this year, as shown on television. The Minister of Local Government,
the Hon Paula Bennett, was sitting on the bungy-jumping chair, flanked
by two male MPs. Paula Bennett was heard emitting a loud and prolonged
scream, while her male companions were silent and relatively composed.
New Zealand law and policy, in effect, punishes men for women’s
frailties, creating and acting on the basis of anti-male stereotypes
– partly because women are more afraid of violence than men
are, and partly because the media and universities are viciously anti-male,
and never allow pro-men activists, such as myself, to counter the
anti-male stances of the man-haters.
How is it that the taxpayer funds this sort of gross intellectual
incompetence and gross anti-male sexism in the Ministry of Social
Development? I have seen this webpage cited as an authority by another
Government agency, so obviously other people do not realize –
as I do – that the Ministry of Social Development is composed
largely of a bunch of vicious, incompetent, man-hating moos!
|
