Men in Research II
Paper
for the NZ Men’s Issues Summit
By
Stuart Birks, Director, Centre for Public Policy Evaluation,
k.s.birks@massey.ac.nz
It might be expected that this paper would consist primarily of a list of research topics on men’s issues. That would give a very narrow perspective. With the limited resources for research, it is important that they be used as efficiently as possible. The really important concern relates to the question, what information is influencing decision making? In other words, what information is available, and how is it being used? Are key points being disseminated? Often, the most important part of the research is the choice of questions to ask. There is little value in getting the correct answers to the wrong questions.
Today I shall give a few examples to illustrate the situation, including some readily available statistics which should lead us to question current thinking. Then I’ll briefly mention some areas which are being largely overlooked.
Central to my thinking is the view that society consists of all of us, men, women and children, living and working together with shared interests and goals. That is not a view that is often expressed these days, with the focus on individualism.
Some Current Issues and Statistics
i)
Dated Perspectives
Two months ago, the National Women’s Convention was held in
Given that we are heading for an election, I have been involved in various attempts to elicit the views of political parties on a range of issues, not least the future being offered to young people, especially young men. Most responses indicated a failure to understand the question.
There is an entire generation that has grown up with the feminist-based message that marriage is bad for women, women are disadvantaged, they are victims, men have been privileged. Power in a male context is bad (“power and control”), whereas for women it is good (“empowerment”, “girl power”). I could go on to talk about messages in relation to income, unpaid work, violence, family responsibility, caring, health behaviours, even dating behaviours, socializing, networks and clubs. How often, in all this, have we seen feminists writing good things about young men?
These views are not evidence-based. They distort our views, they affect the policies we consider, they shape the legal and policy environment we pass on to our children, and they have a fundamental influence on young people’s views of the world and of their place in society.
From a policy perspective, we should be looking to the future to identify the issues they will face, and to act on them early. We are willing to look forward twenty years to consider the needs of an ageing population – that is us. Why are we not looking forward twenty years to consider the future needs of our children?
Today, the focus on men and children appears to be in terms of child support responsibilities. What signal does this send to young men who want to be assured of an ongoing relationship with any children they may father? While we may be signaling to young men that their irresponsible behaviour will be punished, are we demonstrating that responsible behaviour will be rewarded? We are not showing our young people that we recognize these issues. At least for young men, our focus is at best irrelevant, and at worst, disillusioning.
I will now look at some specific distortions.
ii)
“Diversity of family
types”
The current government has put great emphasis on the “diversity of
family types”. In particular, recent legislation and discussion has been
directed at same-sex couples and parents. Are we getting an accurate picture of
families in
A Statistics New Zealand publication gives some household data.[2] Households are subdivided into family types. This means that there are no categories for families which are spread over more than one household. Data from the publication are given in the Appendix to this paper.
While there is much talk about a
“diversity of family types”, in 2001 same sex couples comprised approximately
one percent of all couples without children. Of couples with children, less
than a third of one percent are same sex couples. There
are approximately 2,200 dependent
children in these households. Not all of these children would have been
born into an existing same-sex relationship.
In comparison, in 2001 there were approximately 667,000 dependent children in opposite-sex couple households (from Table 14 of the publication). That does not mean that both members of each couple are parents of the children. Family types that include couples with children do not distinguish between parents and step-parents or other new partners of a parent. There is no family type that recognizes that some of these children have a parent living in a different household. These children may be spending time living in two households, but that is not recorded either.
In 2001 there were approximately 250,000 dependent children in sole parent households. Most of them have another parent somewhere, and they could be spending much of their time with that parent. There is no family type recognizing that relationship.
In summary, while there are
efforts to recognize the relatively small family types of same sex couples with
and without children, there is a marked failure to acknowledge a far more
common family type, that of children whose parents live apart.
iii)
Suicides
The following is from a Ministry
of Health publication on suicide prepared for the media[3]:
Suicide and gender
The male:
female ratio for suicide in 1996 was 3.8:1.
While the rate
of suicide is much higher for males, more women attempt suicide.
One reason for
the gender difference in the rates of suicide may be due to males
choice of more
lethal methods of suicide such as firearms and hanging. Females use methods
such as self-poisoning and therefore are much more likely to be found and given
life-saving treatment.
In terms of “successful”
suicides, the gender differences in methods may not be as clear as this
suggests. The Ministry of Health data for 1996 show total suicide and
self-inflicted injury deaths totaled 428 males and 128 females.[4]
Suicide and self-inflicted poisoning numbers were 156 for males (more than
female suicides by all methods) and 60 for females. Of these, the suicide by
gases and vapours figures were 126 and 31, a gender
ratio of 4:1. The remainder involved solids or liquids, and numbers were about
equal. Hanging, strangulation and suffocation comprised 44 percent of male
suicides, compared 37 percent for females (189 to 41). Firearms and explosives
were used almost exclusively by males, numbers being 46 and 1, but that is
still less than 11 percent of male suicides.
In any event, for every category, there were more male than
female suicides, so choice of method alone cannot explain the higher attempted,
but lower actual, suicide rate for females.
In summary, while there are some
gender differences in methods used in these deaths, they are not enough to
explain the big difference in total numbers, especially as even for suicides by
poison, male suicides still greatly outnumbered female. The Ministry
explanation is wrong, but the reasoning has been used to downplay the issue of
male suicides.
iv)
Family violence
fatalities
Given the attention to deaths
from family violence, it is probably worth putting them in context. The
Ministry of Health document in footnote 6 gave total numbers (not just
family-related) dying by homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other
persons in 1996 as 45 males and 24 females. Of these, 10 males and 8 females
were under 20 years of age. If all adult female deaths were from family
violence, at a maximum, there would have been 16 adult female deaths from family
violence in that year. Similar data for 2000 shows a total of 17 deaths of
females 20 or over (and none between 10 and 19). These numbers are clearly far
smaller than those from suicide.
Christchurch Coroner Richard McElrea was reported in The Press of
For another comparison with
family violence deaths, and an indication of their relative significance,
Statistics New Zealand publishes the Accident Compensation Corporation figures
on work-related fatal injuries that resulted in claims made to the ACC.[6]
For the 2001/2 year, there were 85 claims, 80 male and 5 female.
In a speech on
Economic costs of social problems
In
In 1996, half of all female
homicides means 12 homicides, and this would include female children.
Steve Maharey’s
focus on costs could lead us to wonder about the economic costs of suicides,
and whether we are paying sufficient attention to that problem in comparison to
domestic violence. More basically, the estimates of the costs of family
violence are from a study by Susan Snively.[8]
This study has been shown to have serious flaws.[9]
For example, she assumed that all family violence was by men against women and
children. Although data from the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Project
would suggest perhaps 60 cases a year requiring dental treatment, Snively assumed 37711 cases when calculating costs to the
government. However, according to her study, many of these were not even aware
that they were victims of family violence.
Despite the problems with the
study, raised with Steve Maharey in questions asked
of him in Parliament (2001 Questions Nos. 1442 and 2088), he still uses the
results over ten years after the study was published.
On
We cannot expect sensible
policies to arise from a base of misinformation.. If we are misrepresenting
domestic violence, there is a real danger that we may be applying inappropriate
policies. Can we be sure that the supposed solutions are not generating bigger
problems than they solve?
v)
Sole parents, poverty
and independence
Table Builder, on the Statistics New Zealand web site,[12]
can be used to construct a wide range of tables of
|
Household Type |
One parent with
dependent child(ren) only |
||||
|
Measures |
Average Weekly Wage
and Salary Income |
Average Weekly
Self-employment Income |
Average Weekly
Government Transfer Income |
Average Weekly
Investment Income |
Average Weekly Other
Transfer Income |
|
Year |
|||||
|
2003 |
218 |
40 |
235 |
11 |
0 |
|
2002 |
217 |
39 |
242 |
6 |
0 |
|
2001 |
230 |
21 |
234 |
- |
2 |
|
2000 |
183 |
24 |
266 |
- |
2 |
|
1999 |
160 |
26 |
266 |
- |
0 |
|
1998 |
145 |
41 |
263 |
- |
0 |
Missing Values:
|
- |
Default Missing Value |
The share of income made up of government transfer income is very high, 59 percent in 1998. It fell markedly to 47 percent in 2003, but it is still high compared to other groups. For example, the figures for couples with one dependent child are 6 percent in 1998 and 3 percent in 2003, and with two children they are 5 percent and 3 percent.
Over the same period, average weekly income increased from $449 in 1998 to $504 in 2003, or by 12.25 percent. This compares to inflation of 9.3 percent over the five year period.[14] This group is therefore holding its own in terms of income, but there are other groups which experienced large increases in income over the same period, such as 30 percent for couples with one dependent child and 37 percent for those with two. In comparison, one parent households are falling behind.
If we are concerned about our ability to support large numbers of old people in years to come, shouldn’t we also be concerned about our ability to support large numbers of sole parents? If so, shouldn’t we be looking to reduce the number of people in this situation?
Overlooked topics
If I were asked to identify characteristics that distinguish the current policy environment from the past, high on my list would be the lack of regard for the relationships between children and their fathers. Any perspective on society other than the most individualistic must place people in the context of the people with whom they have close attachments. They affect their motivation, their aspirations, and their life choices. In that context, the following areas merit more attention:
i)
Men and custody
We still do not have data on the award of custody by the courts or, more generally, the way parenting is shared when parents live apart.
ii)
Non-custodial parents
and alienation
Even now, the Family Court appears to be just waking up to the issue of parental alienation. We need to know the scale of the problem, including alienation of both fathers and mothers, what can be done to limit the harmful effects. We also need to know how the effects can be undone, if at all. This would include consideration of relationships between parents and their adult children.
iii)
DNA and misattribution
of paternity
There are no firm figures on the extent to which children have the wrong man named as their father, but, as a rough estimate, 10 percent might not be unreasonable. That would mean that about 400,000 in this country are mistaken in their belief as to the identity of their father. We now have the capability for giving near certainty about paternity, or at least for eliminating misattribution. How large is the problem, and should we solve it?
iv)
Men and work-life
balance
Much of the policy on work-life balance focuses on women, but it is an issue for men also. The male dimension should be explored.
v)
The future for young men
(and women)
A great deal of effort has been invested in telling girls what life options they have, and supporting them in achieving in a wide range of areas. We even have an Action Plan for New Zealand Women. What future is being signaled for young men in terms of work, family, and social inclusion? What do they see as their role, what expectations do they have? In particular, are our young men and women growing up with a realistic view of how they can live and work together and provide a healthy environment for bring up their children?
Good policy is based on quality information. This requires that the information be produced, and that it then be disseminated through policy circles and, via the media, to the public. I hope I have illustrated that there are areas where these processes are failing. Some positions are based on misinformation, although accurate information is readily available. In other areas, relevant questions are not being asked. There is a role for researchers in highlighting distortions, providing accurate information, and identifying questions. There is also a role for the media and others in ensuring that this information is given due attention.
Appendix
Data from Statistics New
Table numbers refer to tables in the Statistics New Zealand publication.
From Table 11, 1996 and 2001 census figures on same sex couples with children:
1996 2001
Family Type by Child Dependency
Status and Type of Couple
Couple with Dependent Child(ren) Only
Male Couple 105 303
Female Couple 387 750
Total 492 1,053
Couple with Adult Child(ren) Only
Male Couple 39 51
Female Couple 69 123
Total 108 177
Couple with Adult and Dependent Children Only
Male Couple 18 33
Female Couple 45 69
Total 60 102
From Table 8, some equivalent data for all couples:
1996 2001
Family Type by Child Dependency
Status
Couple with Dependent Child(ren) Only 300,726 296,826
Couple with Adult Child(ren) Only 77,619 66,984
Couple with Adult and Dependent Children Only 41,541 39,135
From Table 5, the following data are for couples without children:
1996 2001
Type of Couple
Opposite-sex Couples 352,017 373,191
Male Couples .. 1,275 1,836
Female Couples .. 1,296 1,878
Total 354,588 376,905
Of same sex couples with children, the following numbers from the 2001 census refer to couples with one, two, three, four or more, and unknown numbers of dependent children:
528, 369, 156, 102, 24.
From Table 21, data on sole parent households (over 20% of these are with adult children only):
1991 1996 2001
Sex of Parent
Male 27,492 28,491 33,366
Female 124,263 139,764 149,556
Total 151,752 168,255 182,916
s Web site: