Home > Issues > The Issue of the Dykeocracy > The Unscientific Radical Feminist Insurgency inside Police National Headquarters

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

 

The Unscientific Radical Feminist Insurgency inside Police National Headquarters

(twice updated and slightly edited)

© Peter Zohrab 2015

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

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:-

  1. a defender of traditional values and

  2. 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.”

Police letter of 30 April 2014

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.

The top hit on that results page was a page which talked about family violence in gender-neutral terms (http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/white-ribbon-day).

However, the second hit was a page (http://www.police.govt.nz/news/featured/white-ribbon-day) which started off by saying:

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:-

  1. Domestic Violence is caused by the so-called “Patriarchy”;

  2. The so-called “Patriarchy” rules the Pacific islands;

  3. 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:

  1. Give me a copy of the legal authority, under which the New Zealand Government seeks to combat so-called "Patriarchy" in the Pacific?

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. Give me a copy of the theoretical documents which purport to link Domestic Violence, the so-called “Patriarchy” and the Pacific islands?

  6. 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:

Police letter of 5 May 2015

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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”.

  4. 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

Police letter of 20 May 2015

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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”.

  4. 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:

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

30 May 2017

Top