I am publishing here an exchange of emails without mentioning the other person's name. I have told him I would be doing this.

The issue is the readiness of people (especially men) to believe the worst about some other man, without ever hearing his side of the story. In part, this amounts to chivalry and man-hatred, and, in part, it is the result of a type of parental alienation.

If I had a dollar for every time some man had told me the stereotype of the man who bashes his wife to keep her under control (or for no reason at all), I would be rich. However, I have never been able to find any such man, in order to get his side of the story first-hand. Moreover, Her Honour Judge Jan Doogue, in her paper Domestic Violence: Reviewing the Needs of Children (paper delivered at the 3rd Annual Child & Youth Law Conference 2004, 1-2 April), provides a reality check, by stating:

"The Domestic Violence Act 1995 and s. 16B of the Guardianship Act 1968 were based on the classification of violence within the power and control model. In my experience and that of other Judges this model does not fit the profile of many cases coming before the Family Court in New Zealand."

Furthermore, if you search Google for "evidence for the Duluth model" or "evidence for the Power and Control model", the only result you come up with is my page saying that there is no evidence for it!

Male chivalry, which is as common among Male Feminists as among other males, leads to man-hatred, e.g.:

New Zealand Family Court Judge K G MacCormick said (A v R [2003] NZFLR 1105, 1107) that more "women seek (protection orders) is no doubt (my emphasis) because men are generally physically stronger and more inclined to try to resolve disputes by the use of physical force." It is not just that the Judge was arguably utterly wrong, and it is not just that such anti-male stereotypes and prejudices are grossly oppressive towards men and destructive of families. The most striking point is that the learned Judge did not feel the need to refer to anything remotely resembling evidence before making a statement like that, and (possibly) basing his judgement on it. It was just a statement of his Feminist indoctrination or deep-seated man-hatred.

Where parental alienation comes into it is that one parent can alienate the children from the other parent at any stage -- not just when the parents are separated or divorced. It can happen when the parents are living together, or when the other parent is dead.

Here is the (edited) exchange of emails:

From: XX
To: Peter Douglas Zohrab
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: Blog comment

G'day Peter

Well, now we have Obama, will the injustice towards us blokes be rectified? I can only send messages like his at night when herself has gone to bed; she was brought up by her grandmother and both were beaten up by her grandfather who was a misogynist old drunk violent prick as far as I can determine. On a more serious note, I suspect it is these experiences that over time, construct a discourse that domestic violence is purely a male prerogative. As there is less shame for a woman as the subject as against a bloke, the discourse is reinforced. Ipso facto as it were. Nonetheless this does not excuse the conforming pro-feminist attitude taken by a number of male academics who prefer political correctness (read feminism) to intellectual rigour. May their balls whither and drop off.

regards
XX

From: Peter Douglas Zohrab
To: XX
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Blog comment

Well no! I disagree with you with regard to your partner's family history.

Even though I have never met her or her parents, I am quite sure that it is quite false to say:

"she was brought up by her grandmother and both were beaten up by her grandfather who was a misogynist old drunk violent prick."

You have heard only one side of the story, he is not here to defend himself, men do not sit around gossiping to friends about all the dreadful things their wives do to them, women do behave badly and then spend hours spreading their own version of events, and people like you are stupid enough to believe what they say!

The greatest problem with Domestic Violence is that people like you believe this unproven crap, and the repetition of this unproven crap is what gives the persecution of men by the Dykes its power.


Peter Zohrab


From: XX
To: Peter Douglas Zohrab
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Blog comment

Peter

He also beat up his sons. Came from an 'old' Sth Australian family and was disowned when he married 'beneath' himself. By all accounts his wife was a quiet, unassuming person who eventually left when she could, albeit after some 30 years of marriage. He was locked up in the mid 1950's for a serious assault on his girlfriend of the time. He was also a serial philanderer and had installed his girlfriend in the house not long before his wife left.

His behaviour, whatever the reasons, was inexcuseable. To assault and adult woman is one thing, but to bash a child is quite another. My wife still bears the scars, both physical an emotional. Not only was she abused by her grandfather, but abandoned by her mother who escaped the violence, first by marrying during the war and second, escaping to Melbourne.

Domestic violence occurs: men assault women, women assault men. Denial of either belies the truth. Dear God, that we end up in the same 'camp of denial' as the feminists.

Regards

XX

From: Peter Douglas Zohrab
To: XX
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Blog comment

Thank you for your reply.

You still don't get it. The point is that you haven't heard both sides of the story. You are making your mind up on the basis of just one side of the story.

Why do you think countries bother having trials with defence lawyers and so on, when you could just do what you're doing, and just ask the accuser for their side of the story and sentence the accused person on the basis of that!?

It's nothing to do with denial. To deny something you have to at least have heard it. You haven't even heard one side of the story -- and you're ruling it out without having heard it. There is nothing more insane than that.


Peter Zohrab



From: XX
To: Peter Douglas Zohrab
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Blog comment

Peter
I know I have only heard one side of the story. But there are many other stories I take on face value, to wit Zimbabwe. Further I am not entirely sure the value of show trials, such as Nuremberg. However, he was convicted of an assault. Does that meet your criteria?

Regards
XX

(I call him XX, because he thinks like a woman, as many Western men do.)

It is unjust to take anything at face value -- including Zimbabwe. There is clearly another side to the Zimbabwe situation, but this is not the place to talk about it.

The fact that he was convicted of an assault (if it was in New Zealand) does not count for much. The New Zealand Crimes Act provides for higher penalties for assaulting a female than for assaulting a male, so the New Zealand mentality is clearly sexist and anti-male, and no conviction of a male for assault on a female can be taken seriously.

In addition, there is the context to consider. The above emails contain a litany of accusations against this man -- but there is no mention of any of the other parties having done anything wrong. Can we be expected to believe that, out of a family consisting of this man, his wife, his granddaughter, his (two?) sons, and his girlfriend (i.e. 6 people), he was the only one who did anything wrong? And, if he did all these bad things, why did he do them? What had they done to him to provoke him? Had they assaulted him? In an anti-male society like New Zealand (or any Western country, for that matter), what would be the feasibility, for a man, of making a complaint to the police?

In addition, New Zealand's Domestic Violence Act includes psychological abuse in its definition of domestic violence, but the Crimes Act does not penalise psychological violence. So it is possible that this man suffered a lot of psychological violence.

Moreover, if the man's wife left him during the war, the implication is that he was risking his life for his country, and protecting her (in effect), and she stabbed him in the back for it.

If she had refused to sleep with him, for example, then it would have been perfectly appropriate for him to have a mistress -- even in the same house. Although such behaviour might seem morally questionable, we do not know the circumstances.

If I was to hear both sides of the story, I would be able to make up my mind, to a certain extent. But to call someone you don't even know a "misogynist old drunk violent prick" on the basis of just one side of the story is both insane and incredibly common.