Men in research

Men in Research

Paper for the First NZ Men’s Issues Summit

Waitakere City, Auckland, 6 May 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?

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.

Some Current Issues and Statistics

i) Work and the Women’s Convention

In a month’s time, the National Women’s Convention will be held in Wellington. There was a report on this in a Palmerston North paper on 3 April. It began, "Why are women still doing almost all the work - in the fields, offices and home?"

The New Zealand Time Use Survey was conducted by Statistics New Zealand for the Ministry of Women's Affairs. It found that, on average, men did two hours more paid work than women, and women did two hours more unpaid work than men.[1]

Given the purpose of this summit today, it is perhaps worth digressing briefly to look at the Women’s Convention, which is intended to have an influence on decision making. It is timed to be held 30 years after the 1975 United Women's Convention. Many of the same women are involved. There would also appear to be close links to government, given that the Action Plan for New Zealand Women [2], launched in 2004 by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, is a base document for the convention.

It could be a significant meeting, focusing on “the needs of women and men”, although it is not immediately obvious that men’s needs will get a realistic airing. A media release dated 16 August 2004 is intriguing.[3] Here is an extract (emphasis added):

Learn from the Past, Look to the Future 30 years on from the last New Zealand Women’s Convention

It was announced today that a National Women’s Convention is to be held
in Wellington in June 2005, 30 years after the last one held in 1975.

The Hon. Margaret Shields, convenor of the steering committee
established to organise the convention, said today: “The convention has a
number of important objectives. It will review and evaluate the progress
made for and by women over the last 30 years in terms of demographics,
and work and home life as well as the growth in understanding of the
imperatives of environmental sustainability and peace. It will most
particularly look at the situations of young women today and the different
society of which they are a part. This will help us to identify achievable
policy objectives to accommodate the changing needs of women and men
in today’s world.

How are men’s needs to be identified, if only women’s situations are considered? It goes on:

“The conference will address many issues that are fundamental for New
Zealand, aligning women’s achievements and aspirations with the
country’s social and economic development, and setting a path for the
next 30 years,” Margaret Shields said.

Although earlier referring to meeting the needs of young women, this sentence suggests otherwise. Are young women to be allowed to specify their aspirations, or are they to be “guided” to meet the requirements of an older, retiring generation? Presumably men’s aspirations don’t merit consideration, even though men might be expected to have a part to play in social and economic development. In any event, policy positions are being developed from a narrow perspective that excludes men, and may not consider the joint aspirations of young men and women.

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.[4] 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[5]:

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 totalled 428 males and 128 females.[6] Suicide and self-inflicted poisoning numbers were 156 for males 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.

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.[7] For the 2001/2 year, there were 85 claims, 80 male and 5 female.

In a speech on 23 March 2005, Steve Maharey stated[8]:

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.[9] This study has been shown to have serious flaws.[10] 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.

v) Sole parents, poverty and independence

Table Builder, on the Statistics New Zealand web site,[11] can be used to construct a wide range of tables of New Zealand data. The following table reveals some interesting information.[12] 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	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
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.[13] 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

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

[1] “On average, females aged 12 and over spend about 2 hours more per day than males on unpaid work, while males spend about 2 more hours per day than females on paid work.” (P.17 of Statistics New Zealand, 2001, Around the Clock: Findings from the New Zealand Time Use Survey 1998-99, http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8AD45C07-9A77-4C42-AE41-57BBE95CC2B1/0/aroundtheclock.pdf). This point has also been misreported in the media, including: The Waikato Times of 15 December 1999, “Unpaid chores push women’s workload higher – survey”; The New Zealand Herald of 16 December 1999, “Women more productive than men: ‘stymied’study”, and 9 May 2001, “Survey confirms what women all know”; and The Evening Standard, 10 May 2001, “Women’s work is rarely paid, let alone finished”; The Evening Post, 9 May 2001, “Women’s work”.

[5] 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

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

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

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

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

[10] 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

[12] 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”.

[13] 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