Notes
 
 

1999 Version
 
 

2002 Version
 

CHAPTER ONE 1. Matthias Matussek (1998): The Women are at Fault," Der Spiegel, 1998. Translated from German by Walter H. Schneider. 2. In Wellington, New Zealand, in November 1997.

CHAPTER TWO

CHAPTER THREE 1. The number of male primary teachers has also been dropping in New Zealand, according to the lead article of the Education Weekly Vol. 8 No. 311, Monday 15th September 1997. 2. The Peter Ellis case, involving the Christchurch Civic Creche. At time of writing, this case was going through its second appeal, having received one-sided, anti-male media coverage, until a campaign by the New Zealand Listener magazine forced the other media to take a more balanced stance. Peter Ellis refused an offer of parole, which would have involved an admission of guilt. The police officer investigating the case had an affair with the mother of one of the children making the allegations, and one woman on the jury had a lesbian relationship with someone involved with the case. Some of the children were questioned repeatedly by police (a fact which possibly allowed them to pick up suggestions from the police, with which to embellish their testimony), and used vocabulary (such as "clitoris") in court that they could only have picked up from an adult. 3. "Teacher evaluations of the performance of Boys and Girls" by D.M. Fergusson, M. Lloyd, & L.J. Horwood (New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1991). 4. Unfortunately, I don't have the precise reference for this study. 5. For example, with the introduction of Registered Standards in New Zealand, which system has recently been watered down, after (but not provably because of) input by people such as myself, who argued that it was anti-male.

CHAPTER FOUR 1. Reported in Condition Masculine No.4, 1997, p.5, citing "Le Quotidien du medecin, 25-11-1997.

CHAPTER FIVE 1. From the Liberator newsletter, October 1996, p. 4. 2. It was popular in New Zealand, where it was considered very successful. 3. A New Zealand Ministry of Education leaflet, (Boulton, Amohia and Fiona Sturrock: "Women in the Teaching Service," Education Trends Report Vol. 8 No. 1 July 1996, Data Management and Analysis Section, Ministry of Education, Wellington, New Zealand. ISSN 0113-681X)

CHAPTER SIX 1. New Zealand's Television One 2. In New Zealand 3. From the Accident Compensation Corporation, in the case of New Zealand 4. In the New Zealand Listener magazine, for the week December 10th – 16th 1994, the cover story was entitled: "When Mother Love Turns Lethal". It was an interesting article, written by Denis Welch. The part that interested me most was on page 21. It was a half-page box, headed, "Do women get away with murder?" The answer to that question turned out to be "Yes", though he was careful not to say that in so many words. 5. New Zealand Crimes Act 6. Auckland Herald newspaper, New Zealand 7. In New Zealand 8. In a 1993 open letter to the United Nations Secretary General, Neil Foord writes: "New Zealand has known for several years, but failed to stop, a system that encourages and rewards false complaints of rape. Lives are being ruined, men are being jailed falsely, and women who have actually been attacked are afraid to speak because of the scepticism prevalent in this contentious area. In the years since the dangers of our system were recognised, nothing has been done to prevent false complaints, indeed much has been done to encourage and excuse them. Among the judiciary, the legal profession, the Police, Members of Parliament, the media and the general public it is well known that the statistics have been and are distorted by false complaints. International attention is now necessary to embarass those responsible into taking actions that should have been taken as a matter of urgency several years ago. New Zealand has a good official record in human rights, but the separate components of this system have been promoted as advances and reforms, without consideration of their combined effect. ... The factors that have created this situation are: (a) Lump sum payments of typically $10,000 per case, available since 1974 and payable after satisfying our Accident Compensation and Rehabilitation Corporation's own criteria, rather than any legal test. Women are paid even if those they accuse are not charged or are acquitted. Despite publicity stating that lump sums ceased from March 1993, they do in fact continue under another guise as Independence Alowances, which can be capitalised for up to five years and continue to provide lump sums. And ACC pays 98% of claimants, according to recent articles. (b) A 1986 change in the law of evidence that removed the need for corroboration of a complainant's evidence. ... (c) increasing poverty in New Zealand with a reduction in Social Welfare benefits in 1991, and changes in labour laws bringing lower wages and increased unemployment."

CHAPTER SEVEN 1. Evening Post newspaper (Wellington, New Zealand) of June 3, 1997 2. Robert Sheaffer (robert@patriarchy.com) in the New Zealand Men's Rights Association Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 1, 1997 (available on www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708/nwslt197.html, or on homepages.ihug.co.nz/~zohrab/nwslt197.html). 3. The New Zealand Department For Courts leaflet Standing Up to Domestic Violence. 4. "Females are most often the perpetrators of domestic violence in all cultures that have been studied so far. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations: "Researchers are now exploring the role of the 'territorial imperative' as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory." (Sewell & Sewell 1997, pp. 20-21) 5. Excerpts from Letter: "I am writing with respect to the recently-released 'New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 1996'...Although it was interesting to see that the survey stated that 'about the same proportion of women as men were subject to some form of violent or sexual offending on one or more occasions,' I have to raise an issue, relating to the questionnaires: The issue is that the questions dealing with (non-sexual) Domestic Violence were grossly weighted in a way that would minimise positive responses from males, so that the statistics resulting from these questions are of no value at all. Of the four questions (5a-d) on non-sexual Family Violence (commonly called 'Domestic Violence'), two specify that positive responses must be to events 'that actually frightened' the person at the receiving end. As soon as I saw that, it was obvious to me that women are more likely to feel, or admit to feeling, fear – so that this wording would exclude a lot of men who had been victims of Domestic Violence. Indeed, the Survey itself points out (on page 81) that only 31.4% of male victims of violent offences report experiencing fear – as compared with 50.5% of female victims. In addition, there is no mention, in these questions, of the need to report someone throwing something at you. Anecdotal evidence has it that this is a much more common female than male behaviour in domestic disputes. Thirdly, the question referring to the actual or threatened damage of a victim's property (5a) emphasises the word 'deliberately', which would rule out a positive response in doubtful cases where the damage was done in a devious manner and not owned up to -- a more typically female behaviour, in my view. Fourthly, the question referring to the use of actual force or violence (5b) restricts responses to incidents that 'could have hurt' the victim. Because men are more used to contact sports and generally have more upper-body strength, they are both less likely to report actual or potential hurt to themselves, and also more likely to inflict hurt than a woman is. I don't see why a man's experience of, say, being repeatedly pushed by his female partner should not be reported, just because he did not feel likely to be hurt by that behaviour. Overseas studies (e.g. Strauss, M. and Gelles, R., and Steinmetz, S.K. (1980): 'Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families.' New York: Doubleday) have shown that men and women are about equally at the receiving end of Domestic Violence, but this Survey seems to have been designed to produce a more politically correct outcome than that...." 6. In the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1995 7. "Family Violence is a crime: Serious reported assaults on children (under 14 years) have increased 437.50% from 1985 to 1994. Serious reported assaults by males on females have increased 636.40% from 1985 to 1994. Family violence is a community problem that requires a community solution. The Police Managers Guild which represents senior managers and leaders in the Police have taken a positive step forward in the combatting this (sic) ever increasing crime in the community. The Guild will be funding local community policing initiatives in your area through the production of a 'Family Violence' booklet. The Police Managers Guild encourage the community to support the booklet which ill be distributed early next year. Help prevent this crime." (Evening Post, Wellington, New Zealand, Saturday December 9, 1995.) 8. Handbook of Family Violence, Suzanne K. Steinmetz and Joseph S. Lucca, p 241 9. "As the Assistant Prosecutor in the Weekley case, I would like to add some information to your report. I believe your article distorted this case by simply rehashing the defense arguments, which the jury rejected. The relationship between Kay Weekley and her ex-husband Jackie was a violent one. Kay admitted that previous to Jackie's mirder, she had shot up his car with him in it. The jury also heard evidence that on an earlier occasion she had Maced him and beaten him with a frying pan while he slept. Her version of the knife fight that preceded Jackie's murder was not believable. Kay was not the only one hurt; Jackie went to hospital cut up too. The physical evidence presented at the murder trial was consistent with Kay's having shot Jackie from outside the trailer, where she admitted having earlier lain in wait to kill him. Kay Weekley ended this relationship by committing the ultimate act of domestic violence." 10. (Evening Post, Wellington, New Zealand, Saturday, August 24, 1996, page 40) for a stage show called "Full Marx" quoted a review of the show by one Ralph McAllister 11. In New Zealand

CHAPTER EIGHT 1. Here is the text (minus appendices) of my submission on behalf of the New Zealand Men's Rights Association to the New Zealand equivalent: SUBMISSION TO THE LAW COMMISSION ON WOMEN'S ACCESS TO JUSTICE by Peter Zohrab Secretary of the New Zealand Men's Rights Association 28.03.1996   1 The Title of this Study The title of this study by the Law Commission is highly sexist and discriminatory. It disenfranchises men. It disenfranchises men, because it denies men their natural right to information which presents their side of the story. A person does not have a meaningful franchise if they, and the public at large, are systematically denied information that presents their side of the story, and are consistently provided with official information which presents only the other side of the story.... The title "Women's Access to Justice", in the context of the status and mana of the Law Commission, is equivalent to an authoritative assertion to the effect that men have no significant problems with access to justice. That would be fine if the Law Commission had evidence to that effect -- but it has not, as I will show in the second section of my Submission. I complained to the Human Rights Commission about this issue, but was informed that research does not fall within the categories over which they have jurisdiction. They advised my Association to carry out its own research. I assume that the Law Commission receives public funding, so I would urge it to commission me to carry out a study of Men's Access to Justice. Feminists get masses of funding from various sources to carry out Feminist research -- but Masculists get virtually none. So that advice from the Human Rights Commission -- if not actually sarcastic and hypocritical in intent -- was at least equivalent to Marie Antoinette asking beggars to go and eat cake if they had no bread. Society, in terms of information, legislation, and regulation, is a huge Court. Society acquires an impression of the true state of affairs on any issue from the information that is available to it. Having formed an impression, Society (in the guise of pressure groups, parliamentarians, and government officials) proceeds to produce laws and regulations in accordance with that impression. (Not only that, but the Judiciary themselves at times give the impression that they are prepared to enforce the notion that the Executive and Legislature are bound to follow current intellectual fashions -- even if these fashions are current only among a minority of the population. For example we have this quotation from "New Zealand Maori Council v A-G (Cooke P)" 1 NZLR, page 664: "Yet it is equally clear that the Government ... cannot fail to give weight to the 'philosophies and urgings' currently and, it seems, increasingly prevailing." This opinion from the bench was not supported by any pretence of statistics as to the prevalence of the relevant "philosophies and urgings" in the population at large. These "philosophies and urgings" pertain to a very small, but activist, minority of the population as a whole who have access to the media and are nurtured by taxpayer-subsidised institutional backers. But this sort of activist minority, like Feminists, has almost exclusive access to the media on the relevant issues, and use the Ministries of Women's Affairs/Maori development and university Maori/Women's Studies to propagate their one-sided viewpoint. This viewpoint then gets taken up by the Establishment as being the currently fashionable one -- or even the only POSSIBLE one. I am not putting Maori and Feminist issues on the same moral footing here -- just pointing out the parallel in terms of information manipulation. I consider some of the actual arguments put forward by some Maori activists to be much more justified than are the parallel arguments put forward by Feminists. This is because Maoris are an actual minority, rather than a pseudo-minority (as women are), and there is an actual treaty in place, in the case of Maori rights, whose implementation is at issue. This process of totalitarian manipulation of information is mutually reinforcing. Western Society sees and hears the Feminist point of view constantly and ubiquitously. Feminism, in western Establishments, has the status of God's Truth for this reason. Universities commonly have Women's Studies Departments, but few have Men's Studies Departments. These Women's Studies Departments are the Feminist equivalents of theological seminaries, i.e. sources of one-sided Feminist propaganda, rather than being analogous to quasi-objective Philosophy Departments. Similarly, Governments have Ministries of Women's Affairs, but I doubt that a single government in the whole world has a Ministry of Men's Affairs. The Law Commission obviously assumes some version of Feminism to be God's Truth. Only thus would it have the unmitigated gall and vicious misandrist bias to call for public submissions on women's Access to Justice, as if men could not possibly have a problem with that (or with anything else, I assume). I recall that the Feminist Department of Justice's report on Male-On-Female domestic violence "Hitting Home" (1995) was supposed to be followed up by studies on Female-On-Male and same-sex domestic violence, according to press reports. But when I wrote to the Minister of Justice about these planned studies, he replied: "... there will be no decision on further research on this matter until the findings of 'Hitting Home' have been fully considered." (personal communication, 9 October 1995) It is my considered opinion that there will be no such follow-up studies, until the Feminist Department of Justice ceases to be the Feminist Department of Justice and starts to be the People's Department of Justice. This is because the relevant people in the Feminist Department of Justice have the misandrist agenda of vilifying men, and therefore to carry out studies of violence where men are not the only villains, and where women are not the only victims, would be a distraction of the gullible public's attention from this primary agenda, in their view. 2 The Background to the Law Commission's Study The evidence which has led the Law Commission to call for public submissions on "Women's Access to Justice" is itself biased against men. This misandrist evidence has led to the appointment of an obvious Feminist, Michelle Vaughan, to manage the project, which is bound (in my view) to involve a dedicated effort to ignore submissions such as mine, in favour of the preferred submissions which present the Feminist God's Truth point of view. Upon my requesting it, Michelle Vaughan on 8 September 1995 provided me with a 21-item list of relevant overseas publications. Of these, 19 indicate from their titles that they result from Task Forces, Committees, Studies, or Commissions on gender bias in the Courts. Not all of these included dates of publication, but the earliest date of publication listed was 1989. Of the 21 items, 14 were from the USA -- the rest being from Australia and Canada. The forerunner of all these reports, dated 1986, was not on the list that Ms. Vaughan supplied to me. I consider that to have been a deliberate omission. In the Men's Rights struggle, we almost invariably come across pseudo-mistakes of this kind on the part of establishment Feminists when we have dealings with them. This forerunner was "The First Year Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Task Force on Women in the Courts -- June 1984" -- published in 1986 in the Women's Rights Law Reporter, Volume 9, Number 2. This deeply flawed study was an inspiration to most, if not all of the 14 US studies that appeared on Ms Vaughan's list. Key Feminists involved in the New Jersey Task Force went on to act as advisers to the later Task Forces in other states of the USA. It is possible to find such studies harking back to the New Jersey study as having allegedly established the presence of anti-Female bias in US Courts. In Appendix II you will find a different view of gender bias in the US court system. But the New Jersey study was deeply flawed at all levels -- starting with its name, which refers solely to "women". Paradoxically, the introduction to the published report refers, not to "bias against women", but to "gender bias" (op.cit., 129). If we had just landed on Earth for the first time, as visitors from Mars or somewhere, then we would doubtless have assumed that anyone investigating "gender bias" would have to look at bias against both men and women -- so why did the title refer only to "women", we would wonder. But we don't come from Mars, of course. We know that "gender bias" is a politically correct code-term for "bias against women". Nevertheless, the Task Force did use the phrases "treatment of men and women" and "equality for women and men" in its initial phrasing of the issues that it would focus on (op. cit., 135). So I have to ask myself how lawyers and judges, who one would normally expect to be clear-thinking, managed to convince themselves that a Task Force on "Women" had a brief to examine both men and women. The answer is quite clear. The answer is that this study arose out of the culture of one-sided Feminist polemic, with its rhetoric of "oppression", "patriarchy", and so on. This culture takes it for granted that men run Society for their own benefit, and that Feminists, and only Feminists have the motivation to institute "gender equality" in any aspect or part of Society. This model is false. Instead of arguing against it here, however, I append my article "The Frontman Fallacy" (Appendix I). This Feminist culture is the explanation for the paradox that the Task Force, which had twice as many women as men in it, saw nothing wrong in preferring to accept the views of women over those of men, when their views differed on the issue of gender bias: "The perceptions and experiences reported by female attorneys ... differed markedly from those of male attorneys in most categories of questions.... Because gender bias impacts most directly on women, it should not be surprising that female attorneys are more aware of it than are males" (op. cit., 136). This is an extraordinary viewpoint, for two reasons: a) It assumes, without a shred of proof, that gender bias affects women more than men (even though the Task Force itself discovered bias against men in the Courts which it never claimed explicitly to be less important than the bias against women that it also uncovered). b) If the gender of the obervers affects their judgement as to the prevalence of gender bias, then the unequal numbers of men and women in the Task Force itself must surely, by the Task Force's own logic, condemn the Task Force's findings as inevitably biased against men. As indeed they are! The topic of gender bias in the courts is obviously a very broad one. Courts involve people with a large number of different roles: judge, jury, prosecutor, defense lawyer, police, defendant, witness, spectator, and so on. So gender bias, if it exists, will manifest itself in many different ways, and with different degrees of seriousness in each case. It seems to me obvious that the defendant is most at risk in a Court. He (and it is usally "he") stands to lose money, liberty, or even his life as a result of the proceedings -- yet the New Jersey study relegated the issue of gender bias against defendants in criminal cases to sections of a mere 7 pages in the 49-page report. Though evidence was found of gender bias in sentencing, it was only against men -- and so the female-dominated Task Force decided that further study was needed before any action needed to be taken. Contrast this with the Task Force's attitude to the treatment of women lawyers by male judges and lawyers! You will recall that I claimed that "gender bias", in western societies, is just a politically correct code-term for "bias against women". Here is the proof: this is the quotation from the man (New Jersey Chief Justice Wilentz) who set up the New Jersey Task Force, which appears as the Preface to the Report: "There's no room for gender bias in our system .... There's no room for the funny joke and the not-so-funny joke, there's no room for conscious, inadvertent, sophisticated, clumsy, or any other kind of gender bias, and certainly no room for gender bias that affects substantive rights. There's no room because it hurts and it insults. It hurts female (my emphasis) lawyers psychologically and economically, litigants psychologically and economically, and witnesses, jurors, law clerks and judges who are women. It will not be tolerated in any form whatsoever." Chief Justice Wilentz made these remarks in the course of the Task Force's operations, so it is not as if he was setting down guidelines for its work. But his remarks deserve their prominent place in the Report, because they highlight the issue that the Task Force did in fact concentrate a lot of its energies upon. And yet the Report itself indicates that most attorneys surveyed by the Task Force thought that this kind of bias did not even affect case outcomes! "The Task Force asked whether attorneys thought that appropriate forms of address, comments on appearance and sexist remarks affect case outcome. Sixteen percent (16%) of women and three percent (3%) of men thought that they did" (op. cit., 141). I am not in favour of condoning such behaviour, but I make two points here: a) These issues are trivial compared to the penalties suffered by mainly male defendants, and a high proportion of these penalties are the result of Feminist-inspired anti-male bias all the way down the chain from funding for research, to funding for pressure-groups, to framing of legislation, to enforcement of legislation, to rules of evidence, to conviction-rates, to sentencing practices -- all the way down to prison conditions and rehabilitation, and beyond. b) The Task Force (op. cit., 137) cited statistics which showed that bias in favour of women was just as prevalent in courtrooms as bias against women. Even the Task Force's assumption that women were more aware of bias against women than men were does not excuse it for virtually ignoring this point: "Seventy-one percent (71%) of female respondents but only thirty percent (30%) of male respondents reported having observed incidents where it appeared that judges treated women litigants or witnesses disadvantageously because they were women.... Are women litigants and witnesses ever treated advantageously because they are women? Sixty-eight percent (68%) of female attorneys and sixty-five percent (65%) of male attorneys observed such incidents on the part of judges" (op.cit., 137-8). Adding the male and female responses together, it is clear that many more attorneys had experienced bias in favour of (133%), than against (101%) female litigants or witnesses. Even if you assume that female respondents were more reliable on this issue than male respondents (which assumption is itself an example of gender bias on the part of the Task Force), you will see that there is only a three percent difference between the 71% of female respondents who who had observed bias against female litigants or witnesses, and the 68% of female respondents who had observed bias in favour of female litigants or witnesses. Yet the Report mentioned only ways that bias against women could be diminished -- no mention was made of any possible measures to diminish bias in favour of women (i.e. against men). There are many other criticisms I could (and will, if required) make of the New Jersey Report -- and I am sure I could make similar ones of the others on Michelle Vaughan's list. I have not had time to read most of them. But I believe that my remarks above are sufficient to show that there are serious doubts as to the validity of the conclusions that such reports have drawn in the past in other countries. I am concerned to stop the Law Commission's Feminist steamroller from proceeding on the basis of the "obvious" bias against women "revealed" by so many (in fact very deeply flawed) overseas studies, towards its obvious goal of mimicking their findings in the New Zealand context.   3. The Substantive issue: Women's Access to the Law. Women have far too much access to the Law! One example is the Law Commission's present show trial of men by women, this kangaroo court, intent on peddling lies and half-truths, which is what the present study on "Women's Access to Justice" amounts to. In the last couple of centuries since Feminism first arose, and even before the enactment of female adult suffrage in New Zealand last century, Feminist pressure groups have been consistently getting progressively more pro-women and anti-male legislation passed by parliament. At the same time, they have been conning the public by pointing to the straw man of the largely male nature of the actual parliamentarians who took these anti-male, pro-women decisions. Most defendants in Court are male, and mostly they are in Court as a result of Feminist-inspired anti-male bias all the way down the chain from funding for research, to funding for pressure-groups, toframing of legislation, to enforcement of legislation, to rules of evidence, to conviction-rates, to sentencing practices -- all the way down to prison conditions and rehabilitation, and beyond. Women have far too much access to justice....'   2. In the USA, Black men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than white men, but primarily for "crimes" against other black men. Such as murder, assault, battery, etc.. In the Men's/Fathers' Movement, this is often laid at the door of policies that have contributed to forcing black men out of the home by creating the welfare incentives that paid poor women (it started with black women) public assistance benefits to help support their children but only so long as the father was not present. Hence the "welfare queen" cycle where a girl – typically around 16 years old – would get pregnant, move out into an apartment paid for by welfare, and get a certain dollar amount to cover the child. It doesn't take long for her to realize that, the more children she has, the more money she gets. She may not intentionally seek to get pregnant again for the purpose of getting more money, but it's an easy trap to fall into. Nothing settles a man down faster than to have the expectation – either through socialization, legal requirement, or ethical/religious reasons – imposed on him to take care of a woman and her children. When he has no such anchor, in most cases his behavior is focused more on today than tomorrow, long term plans extend to next week if at all, and future goals become yesterday's dreams. The programs that led to this were implemented during the Johnson administration in the mid 1960s. At that time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted it would lead to the widespread breakdown of the African American family. He also predicted that it would eventually spread to affect Euro American families as well. He was right. Bereft of the expectation to become fathers, boys become barbarians, rather than men.   3. In the New Zealand Sunday Star-Times of October 27, 1996. 4. "Maori Children – Fact Sheet" (2000). Te Puni Kookiri (Ministry of Maori Development)

CHAPTER NINE 1. On National Radio in New Zealand.

CHAPTER TEN 1. At The Correspondence School, Thorndon, Wellington, New Zealand, on Thursday 12 March 1998. The Facilitator was Hilary Sinclair. 2. Anne Moir and David Jessel: Brain Sex: The Real Difference between Men and Women, New York, Delta, 1991 3. Criminal Justice Quarterly, Department of Justice, New Zealand, 1993, Issue 3, pages 5-7. " ... Dr Meryl McKay is a Senior Psychologist with the Department of Justice Psychological Services Division (Palmerston North). The following article gives an overview of her PhD thesis which examined what offenders see as the causes of their own offending, and also discusses practical applications for providing treatment programmes for offenders.... Dr McKay interviewed 200 offenders in prison – 50 sex offenders against children, 50 rapists, 50 violent offenders, and 50 offenders against property. The offenders were all being assessed by her as part of her usual clinical work and were given the option of also being involved in the study.... Rapists reported urges for sex with an adult woman as a major cause of offending. ... Other researchers have identified power and anger as being major causes of rape behaviour. However these causes were of minor importance in the present study. Rather, the important conclusion of this study in regard to rape is that in future it may be necessary to address other issues, and avoid preoccupation with anger management solutions."

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CHAPTER TWELVE 1. Definition by Mr. M. Archer, reported in Male View magazine, January/March 1998, p.2. 2. New Zealand State Services Commission 1990

CHAPTER THIRTEEN 1. In New Zealand

 
 

Last Update: 28 December 2004

©Peter Zohrab