Home > Issues
> The Issue of the Dykeocracy
> The Unscientific Radical Feminist Insurgency inside Police National
Headquarters |
|
Empowering Men:
|
The Unscientific Radical Feminist
Insurgency inside Police National Headquarters
(twice updated and slightly edited)
© Peter Zohrab 2015 |
|
|
29 March 2015
(Open Letter to the Minister of Police)
.
Dear Mr. Woodhouse,
1. Introduction
On the TVNZ programme Q+A on Sunday 22 March 2015, you may have seen
the American Lesbian Feminist, Masha Gessen, say that Russian President
Putin was:-
-
a defender of traditional values and
-
a threat to Western civilisation.
She did not give any other reason why he was a supposed to be a
threat to Western civilisation. In effect, she was defining Lesbian
Feminism as central to Western civilisation and traditional Russian
values are as being outside the tradition of Western civilisation.
The same sort of ideological insurrection appears to be happening
inside Police National Headquarters.
2. Domestic Violence
I enclose a copy of a letter dated 30 April 2014 which I received
from the New Zealand Police, which states that “Police encourages
all people (regardless of gender) to report family violence.”
|
 |
However, the police support the White Ribbon campaign,
and when I searched the Police website on 25 March 2015 for “White
Ribbon” (without quotation marks) the results page was: http://www.police.govt.nz/search-results/White%20Ribbon.
“White Ribbon Day is the United Nations International
Day for the Elimination of Violence Against
Women. The wearing of a white ribbon has been adopted as an
international symbol of men's opposition to
violence by men against women” (my emphasis).
This creates the impression that the police contradict themselves,
are intellectually incompetent and possibly only care about violence
by men against women, but do not care about violence by women against
men. This attitude would of course tend to discourage men from reporting
female violence to the Police. If men do not report female violence
to the police, that will merely serve to reinforce what appears to be
a sexist police prejudice, to the effect that domestic violence is only
or mainly something that men do to women.
I refer you to Professor Martin Fiebert’s online annotated bibliography
of domestic violence research at http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
which states:
This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221
empirical studies and 65 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.
3. The Politicized Nature of Police National
Headquarters
What is going on in one particular part of Police National Headquarters
is even worse than the above. Police National Headquarters is not a
sane or politically neutral environment, as the following may make clear
to you:
I worked for The Correspondence School for many years on the ninth
floor of the Police Headquarters building, which was successively known
as Princes Towers, FAI House and (I think) 189 Molesworth street. For
a period of some months or years, whenever I walked down the stairs
a male would come out onto the landing on one of the Police floors and
glare at me as I was walking down. I don't know whether it was always
the same person or the same floor, but I interpreted it as political
hostility, since I am regularly subjected to that in other contexts.
I once put up the following webpage: Lower
Hutt Public Enemy #1. The page contained a scan of a Police advertisement
which includes anti-male political propaganda and stereotypes, such
as:
-
Many men use children to regain control over the relationship
when it ends;
-
Family violence often stems from a belief that women and children
are the property of men;
-
Boys model their behaviour on that of their violent fathers;
-
It is often what is happening to the children that motivates
a women (sic) to seek help;
-
Girls can be withdrawn and fearful.
Afterwards, I received an email from someone who purported to be
a Lower Hutt policeman, asking me to take the page down, saying that
it was making their work more difficult, and that the material I was
complaining about on the webpage came from Police National Headquarters.
I did not take the webpage down. It is not my job to solve any discrepancies
between Headquarters and general police attitudes. My job is to find
and disseminate evidence of police anti-male bias, which I know from
my own experience is extensive and intense, but hard to document and
hidden from the public by the fact that researchers are usually Feminists,
and have therefore no interest in exposing anti-male bias.
.
4. The Unscientific Feminist Insurgency about
Domestic Violence in Police National Headquarters
I would like to draw to your attention (in case you are not aware
of it) the document PACIFIC
PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAMME , which was a presentation
made by a New Zealand Police official to various Australian officials
in November 2014. The website which hosts that document is that of
the New Zealand Aid Programme, which is managed by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade. So what we are talking about here is a
joint operation involving both the New Zealand Police and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as Australian and Pacific Islands
agencies.
They appear to be claiming that:-
-
Domestic Violence is caused by the so-called “Patriarchy”;
-
The so-called “Patriarchy” rules the Pacific islands;
-
It is the job of the Police to destroy and restructure Pacific
island society along Feminist lines.
They are attempting to change Pacific Island social structure into
the Feminist-dominated society that New Zealand is today -- with all
the social breakdown and increased crime that that will involve. The
fact that the person who made the above-mentioned presentation may
well be male is beside the point. Not all Feminists are female.
Under the Official Information Act, could you please:
-
Give me a copy of the legal authority, under which the New Zealand
Government seeks to combat so-called "Patriarchy" in the
Pacific?
-
Give me a copy of the legal authority, under which the New Zealand
Government seeks to combat so-called "Patriarchy" in New
Zealand, if it does so?
-
Tell me how it can be that the “Police encourages all people
(regardless of gender) to report family violence” domestically,
while blaming the “Patriarchy” (i.e. men only) for Domestic
Violence in the Pacific islands?
-
Inform me how women can commit about half (see http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm)
of all Domestic Violence -- including Lesbian Domestic Violence
(see lesbiadv.html) -- while this particular
branch of the Police is acting as if only men committed Domestic
Violence?
-
Give me a copy of the theoretical documents which purport to
link Domestic Violence, the so-called “Patriarchy” and
the Pacific islands?
-
Inform me how current Domestic Violence policy in the Families
Commission and Ministry of Social Development fits in with the above-mentioned
model of Domestic Violence in the Pacific islands?
|
I then received the following interim reply: |
 |
I replied as follows:
T McMahon,
Executive and Ministerial Services,
Police National Headquarters,
PO Box 3017,
Wellington,
Dear T McMahon,
Thank you for your letter of 5 May 2015. I am perfectly happy for
you to delay your reply to my letter of 29 March 2015 until 22 May.
I would request that you take note of the following points:
-
It is neither scientific nor in accord with Natural Justice for
researchers to predetermine the results of their research by selecting
a particular methodology which is designed for the purpose of producing
a predetermined result. Specifically, I suggest that you discount
any Feminist “research” which purports to show that
men commit all, most, or a certain type of domestic violence, by
using the methodology of interviewing just women who claim to be
victims and just men who admit to being perpetrators – in
other words, by ignoring female perpetrators and male victims.
-
It is not intellectually valid to attempt to divide domestic violence
according to the type of methodology involved in studying it. In
other words, since the above methodology only comes up with female
victims and male perpetrators, it is not academically valid to separate
that off from the domestic violence which is studied by legitimate
researchers, by saying that one involves “domestic violence”
and the other involves “interpersonal violence”. That
is a mere sophistic trick.
-
It is important to take account of the bias of researchers. If
researchers into Pacific Island domestic violence are hostile to
so-called “Patriarchy” in the first place (as I think
they are), then it is highly likely that they (or similarly-thinking
people) incite women to fight so-called “Patriarchy”
in their homes – thus provoking the domestic violence which
they then turn around and say was CAUSED by the so-called “Patriarchy”.
-
There is no coherent alternative to so-called “Patriarchy”
that has been overtly formulated in detail, so what in fact emerges
after the undermining of “Patriarchy” is a form of Matriarchy,
which is what we have in New Zealand.
Yours sincerely, etc.. |
5 July 2015
Minister of Police
Parliament House
Wellington
The Unscientific Radical Feminist Insurgency inside Police National
Headquarters (update)
Dear Mr. Woodhouse,
On 29 March 2015 I wrote to you and made some Official Information
Act requests, which you passed on to the New Zealand Police. I received
a reply dated 20 May 2015 from the Police, which
refused to comply with all of my requests (giving grounds for refusal)
except the following one:
e. (Under the Official Information Act, could you please) give me
a copy of the theoretical (emphasis added) documents which purport to
link Domestic Violence, the so-called “Patriarchy” and the
Pacific islands?
In response to the above request, the Police enclosed eight documents
which, they said, “reference (or have, in earlier versions, referenced)
patriarchy in the Pacific Islands....” You will note that none
of them is a theoretical or academic document. |
| hic
 |
 |
The culture of the Police, I would assume, is not particularly
academic or theoretical, since your basic Policeman is hired to deal
physically with thugs (whereas your basic Policewoman is not competent
to deal physically with thugs, because there is a discriminatory policy
which allows women into the Police on lower physical standards than
men have to meet). At any rate, neither your basic Policeman nor your
basic Policewoman is likely to be intellectual, or capable of dealing
with academic issues.
Despite the fact that none of the documents is a theoretical or academic
document, I would like to comment on the theoretical biases that they
exhibit. Five of the eight documents are about aspects of the Feminist
programme itself, rather than being theoretical in any way. The one
document that might seem most likely to be theoretical, since it has
the words “VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON” prominently
on the cover, is the “Vanuatu Report” by Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop,
of the Vaaomanu Pasifica, which is Victoria University of Wellington's
Pacific unit.
With the benefit of a wealth of experience of Victoria University
of Wellington, I can assure you that its standards are political (Leftist,
Feminist, etc.) rather than academic, and this Vanuatu Report is similarly
political, rather than academic. It has no Reference section and no
footnotes or endnotes, so that there is no obvious academic source for
its anti-male bias. I could also mention that the Table of Contents
includes no page numbers. In other words, it is a mickey-mouse document.
It simply assumes that all domestic violence is carried out by men
against women, without providing anything remotely resembling evidence
to back up this unstated assumption. It states on page 5 that “As
with the other four PPDVP national studies, this research was carried
out in partnership with a local NGO, in this case, the Vanuatu Women’s
Centre (VWC),” that “The Department of Women’s Affairs
... was also a partner in this research as was the Women Against Violence
(WAC)”(sic). Obviously, no pro-male agency was involved, even
if such agencies exist on Vanuatu.
The document which is apparently listed as “Domestic Violence
Facilitors (sic) Guide” is obviously an excerpt from a larger
document, since it is headed: “Section 4 Domestic Violence Theories”.
It is pitched at a low intellectual level, and I would have thought
(being an ex-teacher) that a Third-former would have coped easily with
the material.
This document explains in four paragraphs headed “Notes for
the Facilitator” that there are various theories which “provide
some insight or reasons for domestic violence”, but then the material
for the students concentrates on the Feminist notions of the “Power
and Control wheel”, the “Equality wheel” and “the
Cycle of Domestic Violence”, and explains them in terms which
assume that the male is the perpetrator and the female is the victim.
Whenever the text departs from gender-neutral language, the perpetrator
is always described as male and the victim as female.
There are no references to academic works, and no indication that
theories need to be based on evidence, rather than on pure anti-male
prejudice and selective interviewing of female victims and male perpetrators
– as if there were no female perpetrators or male victims, not
to mention Lesbian domestic violence. The “Power and Control wheel”,
the “Equality wheel” and “the Cycle of Domestic Violence”
are all concepts of the Power and Control (aka Duluth) model. . There
is no objective research evidence for the Feminist Power and Control
(aka Duluth) model of domestic violence, as you can see by googling
“evidence for the Power and Control model” or “evidence
for the Duluth model”. I have created a
Men’s Rights version of the Power and Control wheel, since
the Feminist version treats the woman as the victim and the man as the
perpetrator. Since this document mentions Lenore Walker, I would like
to refer you to a review of her book “The
Battered Woman”, which shows clearly how unscientific the
book is.
It is important to realise that the Feminists only made political
issues out of domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse of children because
they wanted to use them as sticks to beat men with. There was no genuine
intention to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, which in fact
has not obviously diminished as a result of the oppression of men which
has resulted from the implementation of Feminist policies in Western
countries. In fact, domestic violence has probably increased, since
women can assault men with relatively little fear of being complained
about, arrested, charged or convicted.
I had previously written a follow-up letter to the Police (in response
to their request for an extension of time to comply with my requests),
in which I wrote:
I would request that you take note of the following points:
-
It is neither scientific nor in accord with Natural Justice for
researchers to predetermine the results of their research by selecting
a particular methodology which is designed for the purpose of producing
a predetermined result. Specifically, I suggest that you discount
any Feminist “research” which purports to show that
men commit all, most, or a certain type of domestic violence, by
using the methodology of interviewing just women who claim to be
victims and just men who admit to being perpetrators – in
other words, by ignoring female perpetrators and male victims.
-
It is not intellectually valid to attempt to divide domestic
violence according to the type of methodology involved in studying
it. In other words, since the above methodology only comes up with
female victims and male perpetrators, it is not academically valid
to separate that off from the domestic violence which is studied
by legitimate researchers, by saying that one involves “domestic
violence” and the other involves “interpersonal violence”.
That is a mere sophistic trick.
-
It is important to take account of the bias of researchers. If
researchers into Pacific Island domestic violence are hostile to
so-called “Patriarchy” in the first place (as I think
they are), then it is highly likely that they (or similarly-thinking
people) incite women to fight so-called “Patriarchy”
in their homes – thus provoking the domestic violence which
they then turn around and say was CAUSED by the so-called “Patriarchy”.
-
There is no coherent alternative to so-called “Patriarchy”
that has been overtly formulated in detail, so what in fact emerges
after the undermining of “Patriarchy” is a form of Matriarchy,
which is what we have in New Zealand.”
Like all professionals, the Police are very powerful, and are quite
capable of using their power in areas in which they are not in fact
competent. If the Police are trained by incompetent or biased people,
the result is that the actions of the Police are incompetent or biased.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority is not up to the task of dealing
with systemic issues of this kind, so it is up to the people’s
elected representatives to ensure that the Police do not delve into
matters where they are out of their depth or act in a politically biased
manner and victimise men at the behest of Feminists who are inside the
Police system.
See also:
|
