(For latest exchange of letters on this topic, click HERE.)

We all know that the Women's Movement has made massive gains on the back of claims that Feminism has something to do with Equality. For example, the webpage http://www.angelfire.com/fl/EeirensFaerieTales/FeminismEquality.html states:

"Feminism or the women's rights movement was originally started to help women attain equality ...."

In fact, as I argue in my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism, this was always only cherry-picking -- i.e. selective equality. No attempt has ever been made by Feminists to investigate or remove the discrimination suffered by men. This has been allowed to continue, and has been intensified by the increased privileges which Feminism has won for women -- at men's expense.

Women now have so many privileges in most Western societies that the velvet glove of "Equality-Seeking" has been thrown away, and the iron fist of Power and Privilege-Seeking has been revealed nakedly beneath. This shows itself in employment policies in the police and armed forces, for example. Below is a letter I received after enquiring about employment policies in the New Zealand Police.

 

 

In 2006. I wrote again to try to clear up clear up some matters that were still unclear to me. As you can see, I asked a lot of detailed questions, and the answers I received raise a lot of issues.

Note that, in his answer to Question 16, the Advisory Officer in Police Legal Services, in effect calls the General Manager of Police Human Resources a liar! The latter (Wayne Annan) stated (see above) that a test that had different standards for men and women was not an entry standard, but an "indicator standard" (whatever that means!). However, the Legal Advisory Officer (Samuel Jennings) states, in answer to Question 16 (see below), that that test IS an entry standard test.

As far as I am concerned, Wayne Annan is a bare-faced liar. I have seen him on television relatively recently, in connection with the announcement of new, even more relaxed entry standards, claiming that the new, intensified double-standards in favour of women amount to "equality" for women. He will obviously say absolutely anything at all. I know something about the culture of Police National Headquarters, where he works, because I used to work in the same building, and was frequently glared at on the stairs by hostile police administrators.

In my letter reproduced below, click on the questions to see the answers that were given to them in a scanned letter (below).

 

22 July 2006
The Minister of Police
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

 

Dear Mrs. King,

I received a reply dated 28 April 2004 from Wayne Annan, then -- and probably still -- General Manager of Human Resources for the New Zealand Police. It was in response to a letter from me about physical standards for entrants to the Royal New Zealand Police College and the physical standards that must be met after completion of training.

I was not satisfied with his reply, because it was clear that there was something relevant that was not being revealed by him. In addition, I understand that new policies in this area have been, or are soon to be introduced.

I understand that there are some people who think that increasing the number of women in the police is a desirable goal in itself, because I have heard a radio commentator say as much, and one could understand the recent prosecutions of past or present police officers for rape as either the result of a plan to create a myth about "police culture", or as the result of such a culture -- or both.

Could you therefore please answer the following questions (under the Official Information Act 1982):

1. Do you see increasing the number of women in the police as a desirable goal in itself, and -- if so -- why ?

2. Do you see increasing the number of men in any employment area (e.g. teaching) as a desirable goal in itself, and -- if so -- why ?

3. Do you see the culture of the Police as something that you wish to change by increasing the number of women there, and -- if so -- why ?

4. Is there any female-dominated employment area whose culture needs to be changed by increasing the number of men in it, and -- if so -- why ?

5. Do you see yourself as bound by relevant provisions of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Human Rights Act 1993 ?

6. Is it a function of the Police to provide employment for women, as an end in itself ?

7. Is it the function of any government agency to provide employment for men, as an end in itself ?

8. Is it the function of any government agency to provide employment for specific ethnic groups, disabled people, or people with particular sexual orientations, as ends in themselves ?

9. Does the Police have, or plan to have different standards for entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites. If not, why not ?

10. Is the overriding goal of the Police to carry out specific functions for the benefit of the people of New Zealand and others present in New Zealand at any particular time ? If so, how do you reconcile this goal with the current double standards, which necessarily results in some policewomen being physically incompetent ?

11. What is the impact on a male frontline police officer of having to work with colleagues (i.e. females) who are not physically competent to the same standard as himself ? Does that place him in more danger than would otherwise be the case ?

12. Would you support having lower entry standards for male applicants for entry into Colleges of Education or into the teaching profession, as compared with standards for females ? If so, why? If not, why not ?

13. On the basis of Mr. Annan's letter, I understand that men and women have to meet different standards for entry to Police College, when they have to pass the Physical Appraisal Test. Is this correct ?

14. On the basis of his letter, I also understand that men and women have to meet different standards as Police Officers, when they undergo a Physical Competency Test every year or every two years (depending on their jobs). Is this correct ?

15. On the basis of the same letter, I understand that the Required Fitness Standard Test is what determines whether trainees, who are otherwise suitable, may actually become Police Officers, that this test has the same standards for men and women, and that the test only differs from person to person according to the particular job that it relates to. Is this all correct ?

16. On the basis of the same letter, I understand that the Physical Appraisal Test is "only an indicator standard, not the entry standard." Is that the case ?

17. If the Physical Appraisal Test is only an indicator standard, what is the precise function of this indicator standard ?

18. If entry to the Police is governed by a test which has the same standards for men and women, what is the reason for an indicator standard which differs as between men and women ?

19. Once women have entered the Police and started working in a particular job, for which they have passed the relevant Required Fitness Standard Test, can they later move to a different job without passing the relevant Required Fitness Standard Test which they would have had to pass if they had gone straight to that job on first entering the Police ?

20. If the Required Fitness Standard Test, which governs entry into the Police, does not have different standards for men and women, but is job-related, why are there different standards for men and women in the Physical Competency Tests for serving police officers? This would seem to be redundant.

21. What do you have to say to male applicants or serving male police officers who fail the male standards in the Physical Appraisal Test or Physical Competency Test, but would have passed the female standard, on the basis of their results ?

     

    Yours sincerely,

     

    Peter D. Zohrab

 

The police are saying that they see increasing the number of women in the police as a desirable goal in itself. Their only reason for this is that they want the police to be reflective of New Zealand society as a whole. I am not aware that any other body is required to be "reflective of society as a whole", or that Parliament has laid this down as a goal. This appears to have been dreamed up by Police Headquarters and the Labour Party.

Why don't the Police say that they need to be reflective of the criminal population, for example? Then the Police would have to be mostly male and have many more Maoris and other Polynesians officers than they have at present. To say that the Police need to be reflective of society as a whole is arbitrary. It is just a way of giving jobs to the girls.

This is a breach of the Human Rights of those male applicants who miss out on selection because they can only meet the female standards, but not the male standards. It is also a breach of the Government's duty of care towards its citizenry. If the standards are there to ensure that the police are physically competent, then female police officers are likely to be physically incompetent. This means that the citizenry is not being protected by a competent police force. If the standards are not there so as to ensure a competent police force, what is the purpose of the standards?

 

Here the Police have avoided answering the question as to why they do not have, or plan to have different standards for entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites. Not only are men been discriminated against, in comparison with women, but all these groups are being discriminated against as well.

Here the Police have avoided answering the question as to the overriding goal of the Police, and also the question about how they reconcile this goal with the current double standards. They could have answered these questions without using the term "physically incompetent". They are being dishonest by referring to "subjective elements" (plural), while listing only one such element ("physically incompetent").

It is clear that the Police are discriminating in favour of women and against men, blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), and transvestites.

The Police is also failing to provide the New Zealand citizenry (and residents and visitors) with the level of competent security to which they are entitled.

I wrote to the Police again (see below) to clarify their answers and get them to answer the questions which they have evaded.

In my letter reproduced below, click on the questions to see the answers that were given to them in a scanned letter (below).

23 August 2007

Samuel Jennings
Advisory Officer
Legal Services
New Zealand Police
PO Box 3017
Wellington

Dear Samuel Jennings,

I acknowledge your letter dated 21 December 2006.

In order to obtain clarification of some of the content of the above letter, including places where you did not answer my questions, I am writing to request that you answer some additional questions, under the Official Information Act 1982:

1. Given that I am unaware of any other institution -- especially of any female-dominated institution -- that has double standards for entry based on a desire to "be reflective of New Zealand society in general," as you put it, who precisely decided that the police should be reflective of New Zealand society in general, and exactly when was this decided?

2. Does the police consider that women have particular qualities that men do not have, which make women more suitable than men for the police, in any respect? If so, which qualities, specifically?

3. In my letter of 22 July 2006, I asked you whether the police have, or plan to have different standards for entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites, and, if not, why not. You answered "No" to the first part of that question, but you did not answer why the police do not have, or do not plan to have different standards for entry for blind people, deaf people, paraplegics, various ethnic groups (e.g. Samoans and East Asians), or transvestites. Could you please now answer that question which you did not answer previously?

4. You also did not answer my question: "Is the overriding goal of the Police to carry out specific functions for the benefit of the people of New Zealand and others present in New Zealand at any particular time ?" Could you please answer that now?

5. I then went on to ask the question, "If so, how do you reconcile this goal with the current double standards, which necessarily results in some policewomen being physically incompetent ?" You refused to answer this question, on the grounds that it was "subjective" to consider that some female police were physically incompetent. In view of your position on that, could you please tell me what the function of entry standard tests is, if it is not to prevent incompetent candidates from entering the police?

6. What measures do the police have in place to ensure that physically incompetent people do not become members of the police?

7. If a male candidate fails to enter the police, because he only achieves a standard that would enable a female, but not a male, candidate to enter the police, is that male candidate incompetent to be a police officer?

8. What is the impact on a male frontline police officer of having to work with colleagues (i.e. females) who are, in some cases, not physically able to meet the same standards as himself ? Does that place him in more danger than would otherwise be the case ? Does that make the police less able to carry out its duties on the front line?

This is the reply that I received:

For a government official to say that the only reason for a policy is that it is "common sense" is by far the most Mickey Mouse thing I have heard of any government anywhere stating at any time in history. (Since the minister is ex-dental nurse Annette King, I should perhaps call it "Minnie Mouse".) If this policy is "common sense", why has it only been introduced just recently? Why have generations of past police administrators been unable to see "common sense"?

This policy is clearly discriminatory, and they are just begging to be taken to court over it. They do not have separate standards for people of different cultures, faiths, or sexualities -- just for women.

This, at least, is a reasonable answer, although TV Wom tends to interview people saying that women are better "communicators", or some such sexist rubbish. If being a good "communicator" is important, then they can select people (men or women) who excell at that. If that happens to increase the number of females hired, then that would be reasonable -- provided they passed the same physical standards as men.

Again, the police are evading the question. Nevertheless, it is clear that they discriminate against men, compared to women, but do not have double standards for the benefit of any group in society apart from women.

 

The Legal Adviser is now getting so desparate that he stoops to unprofessional language -- calling me "disingenuous". In fat, it is the Police administrators who are full of bad faith and hypocrisy.

In ordinary language, if someone does not meet standards to do a job, then they are incompetent -- whether they may be competent at an other time or not is irrelevant. The Legal Adviser is just being evasive, as usual.

It is grossly hypocritical of Samuel Jennings to pretend that the Police do not know what the effect on a police officer of having a physically incompetent sidekick would be.

(See also: Men Die Because Female Police are Physically Incompetent.)

(For the situation in Brazil, see Equality for Men in Brazil's Bahia State Military Police.)

Top