Fake Personal Safety Statistics
Peter Zohrab 2018
(Open letter to the Australian Minister of Statistics)
I am writing to you about the
2016 Australian Personal Safety Statistics, although I am not an Australian
by residence or citizenship. I am a New Zealand Men's Rights Activist and
I have long been irritated by the fact that there is an Australian website
called "One in Three"
which purports to highlight family violence against men. Yet the evidence,
internationally, is overwhelming in proving that it is one in TWO -- not one
in THREE -- victims of family violence who is male! See, for example, Professor
Fiebert's annotated bibliography at https://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.
How can I go around saying (as I do) that it is One in Two, when there is
this Australian Men's Rights organisation saying that it is One in Three?!
It undermines my work to some extent. According to Bettina
Arndt, who has been associated with this website, the reason it calls
itself "One in Three" is that that is what the official Australian
Government statistics say. So it is the fault of the Australian Bureau of
Some years ago, I had a similar problem with the official New Zealand Government
statistics, but I was able to point out the bias in the questions which led
to the fake results, so the questions were revised for the next iteration
of the survey. See the relevant section of my book, Sex,
Lies & Feminism.
Consequently, I was fairly confident that the Australian
Government survey would be similarly biased and (after Greg Andresen, of the
One in Three website told me where
to find a list of the survey's questions) that is what I found to be the
case in fact!
The following is not an in-depth, detailed analysis, but is sufficient to
show bias and unprofessionalism.
Emotional Abuse questions EMAB_Q04, EMAB_Q05, EMAB_Q11, EMAB_Q12, EMAB_Q13
all refer to the notion of "control", which harks back to the
totally fictional and unempirical "Power and Control" model of
family violence, which totally ignored female violence and focussed solely
on male violence. These also questions stigmatise some cultural norms according
to which the roles of men and women are supposed to be different. Often
this would involve immigrant families, whose females would be subjected
to Feminist propaganda in the education sector and workplace, etc., but
the males had an expectation, on which the marriage had been based, that
the family would lead a Non-Feminist existence. It is racist and sexist
to characterise as "emotional abuse" efforts by males in such
families to enforce the cultural norms which informed the marriage at its
inception. There are five (5) of these questions which refer to "control"
out of a total of only eight (8) substantive questions about types of emotional
Emotional Abuse question EMAB_Q06 specifically asks about the intent of
a third party, e.g. "Shouted, yelled or verbally abused you to
intimidate you." It mentions intent in three sub-questions altogether.
However, no one can be certain about the intent of another person. Conclusions
about another person's intentions are at best speculative, rather than factual.
Typically, such judgments may ignore the feelings of the other person, who
may themselves have been subjected to abuse by the person answering the
questionnaire. Such judgments about intentions probably focus on the person's
own feelings and project (rightly or wrongly) onto the other party an intention
to produce those feelings.
Emotional Abuse question EMAB_Q19 asks specifically about "anxiety"
and "fear", which are emotions which are more characteristic of
females than of males. Men lead harder lives than women do and cannot afford
to indulge in the emotionalism, screaming and crying that females apparently
use to attract sympathy and assistance. There are several other sorts of
negative emotions that a male might experience when subjected to physical
or emotional abuse and these are not asked about in the questionnaire.
The questions on Partner Violence cover interactions both between partners
and between ex-partners (i.e partners after separation). This is inappropriate.
Partners who are separated do not form a "family" and therefore
should not be included in a section on Partner Violence. If they are included,
the statistics should be presented separately from those involving real
partners who actually live together. The reason for this is that many more
mothers than fathers end up with sole custody of the children after separation
and divorce (I assume), which gives the mothers a huge amount of power over
the fathers. If you want an example of "Power and Control", this
is it! Since access to children is a civil matter, fathers have few options
as to enforcing their rights in real time, so violence may occur as a response
to female Power and Control. If the Partner Violence statistics were collected
separately for partners and ex-partners, researchers might be induced to
investigate any differences in violence rates between the two situations.
There is a problem with the phrase "in a sexual way" in Sexual
Harassment question HRS_Q12. The problem is that the sexual areas of a man's
body are not so well-defined as they are in the case of a woman. In the
case of women, everyone knows that the breasts and genitals are sexual areas
which must not be touched outside an intimate relationship. However, women
can be attracted to a man's muscles (i.e. to any one of many parts of his
body) and also to his brain (and therefore his head) -- not just to his
genitals and buttocks. I have had women treat my upper arm and my head as
sex-objects, for example. The questionnaire should make this clear.
I trust that the above comments are sufficient to convince you that
Men's Rights advocates should be included in any panel that draws up such
questions in future.
Peter D. Zohrab
Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.
31 July 2018