Poisoned Prose

A critique of an article by Simon Collins, New Zealand Herald, 21 August 2006

Before we go any further, let me make it quite clear where I stand on violence: I don't believe it is OK for men to hit women. I don't believe it is OK for women to hit men.

Nor do I believe that the common combination of intimidation, verbal harassment, putdown, windup, and so forth that often accompanies, or serves instead of, physical violence is OK, from either sex.

I believe it is sometimes appropriate for parents to use physical means to discipline children, but certainly not to the extent that physical injury occurs. We are not talking about conflict resolution between adults, we are talking about appropriate limits being established and maintained for children whose upbringing is our concern and responsibility.

So when an article like the one below appears in the Herald, ostensibly part of a media campaign to raise awareness about family violence, why does my stomach crawl?

My stomach crawls because the article is a piece of anti-male shit. It is a piece of anti-male shit despite the fact that its author is apparently male, and despite its ostensible focus on "family" violence.

I have no personal gripes about either the Man Alive Centre or the Prevention of Violence in the Home group. What I do have issues with is the way in which their activities and statements have been used as ammunition in this article so as to target men.

[My reaction, I imagine, is the same reaction that a Maori might have when he or she sees prison statistics utilised by those with racist agendas so as to reflect on all Maori. If the figures I was given recently are correct, the percentage of Maori who are not in prison is 98.8%. The percentage of non-Maori who are not in prison is 99.9%. Prison figures are not a good start for drawing conclusions about racial characteristics. They refer to a very small section of the population indeed.]

We'll start with the photo, a couple of women working for Preventing Violence in the Home. The picture is shot from low down - a classic film cliché to add stature to the persons being photographed.

We note that the organisation is called Preventing Violence in the Home, or PVH, a comfortable, neutral title. Later on we discover that the organisation was founded to assist women and children who are victims of violence, not men. (emphasis mine)

The opening paragraphs are then devoted to an extended description of an example of white middle-class male violence, culminating in a visit from the police, who notify PVH. PVH counsellors arrive with a checklist in hand for Susan to complete to establish whether the relationship is abusive, and it scores on all except two boxes.

I'd want to know for a start who designed the checklist and what the criteria for "abusive" are and who supplied them on the basis of what research.

I'd want to know what effect producing such a checklist immediately following a crisis involving police intervention might have on how the boxes are ticked compared with what the response might be a day or two later.

I'd want to know what "permissions" labelling the relationship as abusive gives the woman concerned.

I'd want to know whether men ever get a say in the relationship being thus labelled.

But those are to the side, as it were.

The report follows this immediately with the sentence, "Unfortunately, Susan's experience is all too common." (emphasis mine)

Question: What kind of picture of "family violence" is being depicted?
Answer: Men are violent, women and children are victims.
Question: In this article, dealing with "family" violence, are there any graphic examples provided of female violence?
Answer: No.

What would it have taken to write "... this experience is all too common"?

The next paragraph tells us that "surveys" suggest two women in ten and one man in ten have partners like Susan's. In other words, using figures supplied in the article, about 33 % of partners who damage property are women. Not a majority, but a very significant minority.

But the experience is "Susan's". Women are victims.

For every three women that have been "hit, kicked, pushed, grabbed or shoved", there are two men whose partners have behaved in this way, if the surveys are valid ones. 40% of violent partners are women. Family violence goes both ways.

Is this reflected anywhere in the article except in these two short paragraphs? No, it isn't.

But it's "Susan's experience" that is all too common. Women are victims. Men are violent.

The next section of the article starts with a nice, comfortably neutral, introductory sentence:

Unlike some other antisocial behaviour, everyone regrets such violence - even the perpetrators.

That's great. You can feel yourself nodding in agreement.

We now switch to Mal Lange, who counsels violent men at the Henderson "Man Alive Centre. I don't know Mal, but I have visited the centre for a social function or two, and I've heard good things about it. I love the sign in the loo which says, "Please leave the seat up when you leave."

Note, we have now left "Susan's problem" with her violent husband and we are talking to a counsellor of violent men.

He says:

I don't think any guy [abuses] his partner or children and doesn't feel some degree of regret, shame or remorse (emphasis mine)

Now my guess is that Mal spoke about guys simply because he works with men and that is what he knows about. But once again, the emphasis in the article suggests males are violent, women are victims.

There is nothing in the article that makes any reference to counselling services for violent women or groups that assist male victims of violence. Do they even exist? We aren't told. Violence, in this article, is something that men do to women. "Family" violence is something that men do to women.

In a context where at least one third of partners who damage property are women, and at least 40% of partners who are physically violent are women, the absence of assistance for men in a "family" violence context is weird.

It is weird if it doesn't exist at all. It is even weirder if it exists and is being ignored in this article on "family" violence.

The next section of the article addresses a fundraising drive by PVH. Spokeswoman (sic) Trish Sherson is quoted saying:

We have known that this problem [family violence] has been getting worse for some time. Now we are looking for solutions.

That's great. We need solutions. She goes on to say:

"Solutions" of two kinds are needed: first, to protect women and children from violence; and second, to stop the violence in the first place.

Now PVH's focus is on women and children, not men. No problem with that. They were not founded to assist men.

Given their choice of title, though, you'd think they might be more even-handed. Families include men, homes include men, and men have violent partners as well. But they're not even-handed, they were not set up to assist men, no matter what their name is, and in the final analysis, it's their business.

However, in the context of the article, this quote is one more finger pointing at the conclusion: Men are violent. Women (and children) are victims. This article is not about family violence, it is about targeting men.

A few paragraphs later, again using PVH procedures to illustrate, the same thing happens: PVH visit victims and where there are children, "they like to make three or four visits until the woman and children are all safe".

Next, the article features a series of recommendations from the Hughes taskforce against "family violence". These all seem to be fairly constructive and useful proposals until we get to the last one quoted which reads:

Action plans for each family are agreed and implemented. Police will prosecute breaches of protection orders, probation officers will return men to jail if they breach an order on parole, and the housing agency will change locks or move a woman to a new home. (emphasis mine)

Once again, there seems no reason to specify sex where assistance is needed with a violent partner. And the upshot in this report, once again, is to point at men as violent, women as victims.

A few paragraphs further and we get:

Agencies such as PVH and Man Alive get funding from the Family Court, CYFS and charities to run groups for violent men. (emphasis mine)

As a little further jab we are told that 40% of men drop out of such programmes. In the context of the article, that's another finger pointing at men. I venture a suggestion that something is seriously wrong with the design or implementation of programmes that are rejected so early and so often.

And finally, we are told that the solution to family violence is probably to change the way we bring up our boys. Great stuff. I knew there was simple solution all along. Why didn't we think of this before? It's a no brainer, isn't it? Let's DO IT!

All men are violent, so change the way we bring them up.

Wait on. Who said ALL men are violent? Is that like ALL men are rapists?

Let's slice those figures again, the article's own figures: 79% of women have partners who do not "hit, kick, push, grab or shove". 80% of women have partners who do not damage property.

If we look at violent partners, despite the fact that 33% of partners who damage property are women, despite the fact that 40% of partners who are physically violent are women, the solution is to change the way we bring up boys. Women don't need to change because they did all the changing they needed to do 40 years ago.

Well, according to the article, that's what Mal reckons.

PPPPPHHHHHTTTTT.

This article is an exercise in male bashing. And not even an honest and open piece of male bashing. Given its ostensible moral-high-ground "family violence" focus, a critic of its poisonous agenda might well end up accused of undermining efforts to combat violence, or being a closet basher himself (Or herself. I'm sure there are women out there whose skin crawls every bit as much as mine in the face of this stuff.)

I am not even going to speculate on the motives that made Simon Collins produce such an appalling act of journalistic prostitution, but there it is.

Preventing Violence in the Home advocates Zaif Khan (left) and Jill Proudfoot. Picture / Greg Bowker

 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10397176

Attitudes change towards old taboo