Home > Issues > Domestic Violence > Fake Personal Safety Statistics

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Fake Personal Safety Statistics

Peter Zohrab 2018

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map
(Open letter to the Australian Minister of Statistics)

Dear Mr McCormack,

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 Statistics!

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.

  1. 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 abuse..

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

     

    Yours sincerely,

Peter D. Zohrab

Summary Haiku:

Men have no rights,
but aren't less human.
We blame sexism.

 

See also:

Research on Domestic Violence in Australia

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

31 July 2018

Top