There was a newsgroup post suggesting that men who consistently promoted certain lines of argument were deluded by fears of a "Feminazi plot". This was my reply:
I am not sure about a "Feminazi plot", but there are some very strange things going on at present. Just to look at some of the publicly funded research and policy evaluation (these are all for New Zealand):
1) "Violence against women: priorities for public health research in New Zealand", New Zealand Medical Journal Vol.107, 23 February 1994. To quote: "While available sources indicate that the scope of the problem is extensive, the true incidence of family violence is unknown, ... a national process of consultation was undertaken, with funding from the Health Research council of New Zealand (HRC), to identify priorities for public health research relating to violence against women." [is "domestic violence" synonymous with "violence against women"?]
2) Emergency Department Protocol of Care - developing, implementing and evaluating an emergency department protocol of care for women abused by their partners. [there is no such protocol for men, the protocol as used in HAIPP (6 below) includes documentation of injuries for use in court, plus advocacy services]
3) Investigating Violent Men's Attitudes - interviewing men from Stopping Violence programmes to find out how they see their own behaviour, and what environmental factors legitimise their violence to their partners. [there is no equivalent New Zealand study of violent women]
4) Effect of Domestic Violence on Children - studying the effects of domestic violence on the children of battered women who have been to a women's refuge. [this is most probably only covering the effects of domestic violence by men]
[The above 3 were funded by the Health Research Council. When publicised in their March 1994 Newsletter, they described them as three HRC-funded projects investigating _domestic_ violence.]
4) "Children and Family Violence: The Unnoticed Victims", Social Policy Journal of New Zealand July 1994 - by Gabrielle Maxwell from the Office of the Commissioner for Children. Used data from the Hamilton Abuse Intervention
Pilot Project, raising similar issues to (3) (see 6, below).
5) "Dilemmas in the Criminalisation of Spousal Abuse", Social Policy Journal of New Zealand July 1994 - by Helene Carbonatto, Institute of Criminology. Includes the following: "Spousal abuse as it is presented here broadly refers to abuse between a female victim and male offender, who are, or have been, in any kind of intimate relationship."
6) Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project - briefly, there is an "Assailant/Men's Programme", and a "Victim/Women's Programme". The report forms do not include questions on violence by the "victim". there is no use of the term "alleged" in relation to assailants, although they have not been convicted at that time and charges may not even be laid.
7) The Women's Access to Justice project, run by the Law Commission. From the terms of reference:
"Priority will be placed on examining the impact of laws, legal procedures and the delivery of legal services upon:
* family and domestic relationships
* violence against women, and
* the economic position of women
At all stages of the project, there will be widespread consultation with women throughout New Zealand. The project will also draw upon, and complement, the work of other government agencies, the Judicial Working Group on Gender Equity and other Law Commission projects."
There is a "call for submissions" in the September newsletter. It states, "We really need to hear from the women of New Zealand about their experiences with the legal system."
The list of issues includes many matters of concern to men, such as: matrimonial property, de facto relationships, maintenance and child support, custody and guardianship, superannuation, and paternity issues in de facto relationships. There is no call for submissions from men.
8) The Child Support Review Consultative Document addresses the question of gender bias in the Child Support Act. On page 16, the issue of gender discrimination in the legislation is dismissed on the basis that the assessment criteria are gender neutral:
"The Act is only concerned with the provision of financial support from absent parents toward their children, not the gender of the liable parent or custodian."
The language is clearly gender neutral. However there is a difference between the technical effects of the legislation, as specified in the gender neutral language of the Act, and the distributional effects in terms of who is generally affected in what way.
This is clearly stated and the bias apparent on page 24, where it states that:
"a strong disincentive to workforce participation could result if every dollar earned by the custodian over a given threshold resulted in a decrease in child support. As 84% of lone parents are women, structural gender based inequities in the labour market could be worsened."
The document also uses the terms "absent" parent (for NCP), and "lone" parent (for CP), although a parent is an NCP if the children are there for anything less than _40%_ of the nights.
*****************************************************************
If I have somehow managed to overlook research into violence by women, or violence against men, or the experiences of men in terms of the fairness or otherwise of the legal system, or the involvement of non-custodial parents in the upbringing of their children, or of the problems caused by custodial parents obstructing access, or the effects of child support obligations on NCPs, or the lack of accountability of the CP for the use of child support money, or the problems (usually for NCPs) arising from long delays in the settlement of matrimonial property issues, or other relevant areas, please let me know. (Oh, and I didn't even include the Hitting Home study from the Justice Department which interviewed only men, and did not ask them about any violence they had received.)
Stuart Birks
13 October, 1995