Men in Research II

 

Paper for the NZ Men’s Issues Summit

Christchurch, 5 August 2005

 

By Stuart Birks, Director, Centre for Public Policy Evaluation,

Massey University, Palmerston North

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 Wellington. It was intended to have an influence on decision making, and was timed to be held 30 years after the 1975 United Women's Convention. Many of the same women were involved. There would also appear to be close links to government, given that the Action Plan for New Zealand Women [1], launched in 2004 by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, was a base document for the convention. It is an outdated agenda of an ageing group of people, and it was interesting to note that the programme was severely trimmed and attendance was much lower than expected.

 

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?

 

Paul Callister will talk about the population gender imbalance among younger people. There is also an education and career imbalance. This is not the one commonly mentioned, that there are not enough women in senior positions. Nearly 60 percent of tertiary students are women. In twenty years this could create a gender imbalance in more senior positions in several professions. On current work patterns, many of our women doctors and vets are unwilling to work full time or to be on call. This has been partly explained in terms of family life and work-life balance. If these views persist, we will need more trained people to do the same work, and those few who are willing to work unusual hours will be heavily burdened.

 

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 New Zealand, or have significant types been overlooked?

 

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 maleschoice 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 18 June 2005, stating that, of eleven suicide cases in September to December 2004, relationship break-ups or problems featured significantly in four.[5] Might exclusion of someone from a family be considered a form of family violence? If so, should such cases be included among family violence fatality statistics?

 

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 23 March 2005, Steve Maharey stated[7]:

 

Economic costs of social problems


In
New Zealand, half of all female homicides are the result of domestic violence. Ten children are killed every year in acts of domestic violence. The non-financial cost of family violence is inestimable. The financial cost of family violence in New Zealand is between four and five billion dollars. And this is a conservative estimate calculated ten years ago. This cost is partially comprised of greater use of health services and police and court time. But it also includes loss of income and work for employees due to family violence.

 

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 16 June 2005, Muriel Newman asked a question in Parliament about the advice given by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to its Minister on violence by women.[10] It appears that the Ministry does not acknowledge the scale of women’s violence against men or children. This is despite its responsibility not to withhold important known facts.[11]

 

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 New Zealand data. The following table reveals some interesting information.[13] It relates to households consisting of one parent, dependent children and no others.

 

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 Zealand (2002) 2001 Census: Families and Households

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


 

 



[2] Statistics New Zealand (2002) 2001 Census: Families and Households, http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/ED8AF5A8-9FA8-4865-BD82-8ADA357DE7E3/0/FamiliesandHouseholds.pdf

[3] Ministry of Health (1999) Suicide and the media: The reporting and portrayal of suicide in the media - A resource, September, available on the Ministry of Healths Web site: http://www.moh.govt.nz

[4] Data from tables 4 and 5 of Ministry of Health (1999) Mortality and Demographic Data 1996.

[5] Norris J (2005) “Suicide factors emerge”, The Press, 18 June.

[6] Statistics New Zealand (2003) Injury Statistics 2001/2002: Work-related Injuries

[7] Maharey S (2005) “Social and Economic Goals of Labour Market Policy”, 23 March, http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=22533

[8] Snively S (1994) The New Zealand Economic Cost of Family Violence, New Zealand: Department of Social Welfare

[9] See Chapter 3 of Birks S and Buurman G (2000) Research for Policy: Informing or Misleading? Issues Paper No.7, Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, Massey University, Palmerston North, http://econ.massey.ac.nz/cppe/papers/cppeip07/cppeip07.pdf

[10] Question for Written Answer 7396 (2005), available via: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/Publications/QuestionsForWrittenAnswerIndex.htm

[11] In the section on “free and frank advice” in State Services Commission, Political Neutrality: Fact Sheet 3 - The Relationship Between the Public Service and Ministers, Last updated 25/9/2003,

http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?navid=183&docid=3995&pageno=2#P51_5389

[13] From the entry URL, select “Tables by subject – income statistics”, and from there follow the menus down via “Income tables – Households - Type of Household also showing Type of Income”. Expand income types, to get a table showing “Average and median weekly household income by source of household income and household type”.

[14] Third quarter 1998 to third quarter 2003, according to the Reserve Bank’s New Zealand CPI Inflation Calculator, http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html