01 January 2006

 

Neville Robertson's comments are "plainly ridiculous"


An open comment to Neville Robertson is also provided on the Menz site: http://tinyurl.com/d8g7h:

Stephen writes: " I guess I should have expected it from someone who’s made a living from infecting naive freshmen (or freshpersons as you’d probably say) with such ideas as 1 in 4 adult females have been abused. But your comments about the plain offensive nonsense Air NZ and Qantas have been up to still leaves me gasping in exasperation.

Quite why you have to obfuscate the issue as though it’s only about some kind of seating plan issue is anybody’s guess. Except I do know you and your DV/Refuge cronies can gnaw away on a juicy bone as long as you can keep hysteria about men rolling.

What appals me most though is the thought that someone with a PhD lecturing in Community Psychology can bring themselves to utter the plainly ridiculous by saying it’s not discrimination against men when airlines bluntly announce that their policy is MEN don’t sit next to unaccompanied children on their flights period.

It’s embarrassing for me to have to explain this to someone who’s supposedly very smart and community minded. But for the sake of a pretty large (and from all accounts I gather growing) community of people I belong to I have to state the obvious -

Discrimination means different treatment (Cambridge Dictionary 2005)
Now what part of discrimination don’t you understand?
The kind that’s levelled against men it seems.

 

Neville Robertson is given a lesson on human rights


Replies to Neville's extraordinary justification for the airline seating ban for men were provided on the Menz.org.nz web site http://tinyurl.com/d8g7h:

A comment from Alex Geddes answers Neville Robertson's question "I would have to ask that if I'm allocated seat 1F instead of 4E - how has that infringed my rights? Alex writes:

The answer is simple - look to Rosa Parks. She was tired of being forced to sit down the back of the bus because of her colour and one day she chose to sit in a seat reserved for whites; it was not that a seat wasn’t available to her, it was that a particular seat wasn’t available to her. Her defiance was the spark that ignited the American civil rights movement. Is it too much to hope that Dr Robertson’s discriminatory thinking will be consigned to the dustbin of history?

 

Neville Robertson - Knee jerk reaction is to argue against concerns of men.


At the end of November 2005, the policy of Qantas and Air New Zealand to ban unaccompanied children from sitting next to men was publicised. The ban drew widespread and immediate condemnation from a wide cross section of the community. The main exceptions to this condemnation were the Commissioner for Children (Cindy Kiro) and on 1 December, Neville Robertson added his voice supporting the ban.

The following is Robertson's justification (as reported in the Bay of Plenty Times, 1 December 2005, "Bay fathers afraid to play dad"

Dr Neville Robertson, a community psychologist at the University of Waikato thinks that there are no grounds for discrimination claims over the policy.

"It has been clumsily handled. But this is being portrayed as an infringement of men's rights and I would have to ask that if I'm allocated seat 1F instead of 4E - how has that infringed my rights?

"Discrimination means that you deny someone a right and the right in this case is a comfortable seat on the plane - and that's what they [men] will get. I think reaction to this is disproportionate. People take it personally - it's not a personal attack at all."

 

Neville Robertson - Supports state-sanctioned murder!


Neville Robertson and the former Women's Refuge national co-ordinator, Roma Balzer were in New Plymouth in April 2005 to run a seminar titled "Beyond Battered Women's Syndrome". The following comments by Robertson were reported by the Taranaki Daily News on 11 April 2005 "Murder seen as only way out for some women, seminars hear" by Lyn Humphreys:


Dr Robertson said battered women's syndrome should no longer be used to describe abused women's behaviour.

Because "syndrome" was added it became a disease, but it was simply a pattern of behaviour, he said.

"Its use is to help explain how women sometimes kill the men who abuse them. But you don't need a psychiatric explanation, you need a much simpler explanation.

"It's to do with terror and the failure of society to protect women who are being terrorised. As a consequence, killing him may be a perfectly rational thing to do and the only response available to them," Dr Robertson said.

Rather than use battered women's syndrome as a defence for the killing, a better legal remedy was to look at the notion of self-defence, he said.

Currently, self-defence could only be used when the danger was imminent.

"But if you are coming at me with a knife it is too late, so my defence has to be to attack when you are asleep."

For such women, the law should explore self-defence as a planned activity, rather than in the heat of the moment, Dr Robertson said.

 

Neville Robertson - Feminist poodle?


Here is what one person thinks of Neville Robertson's contribution

from Menz.org.nz another web site: http://tinyurl.com/85sjh

In response to a NZ Herald news report that stated

" The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has commissioned two Waikato University academics, lawyer Ruth Busch and psychologist Neville Robertson, to conduct a year-long study of protection orders, including the barriers preventing women from seeking them"


"Stephen" wrote (20 October 2005)

What an outrageous sham the Ministry of wimmins affairs is. I see they’re going to appoint a year long study of protection orders, including ‘barriers’ to women seeking them. Talk about researching with a forgone conclusion already held! PC - Pathetically Correct.

I know one of the academics who’s being appointed to do the ‘research’ very well - Neville Robertson - Waikato social sciences lecturer.

Many years ago I was naive enough to be involved with him for a few years in a feminist men’s group in Hamilton, until I saw the feminazzi bullshit they were pulling. Now that I’ve long graduated beyond his stupid academic femthink I consider him a dangerously deluded feminist poodle - perfect for the job wimmin have for him.

This is the feminist frontman guy I wrote about in other threads who in all earnestness used to stand in front of 300 or so impressionable freshman students and spout such garbage as - we live in a patriarchy, all men are rapists, 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted, if I see a woman alone in the street I always cross over to the opposite side of the road from her to make her feel safe, blah, blah, blah.

He has made a lucrative career out of brown-nosing marxist radfems thereby selling his brothers down the river as he suckles on the public purse. So IMO we can expect more misandrist bullshit from those quarters, and paid for by the taxpayers of NZ to boot. A shame and a sham.

 

Neville Robertson - Methodology


Neville Robertson wades in with a comment to the Timaru Herald in response to concerns from letter writers about violence by women:
(Refer Timaru Herald, 23 Nov 2005, "Studies show violence is mostly male")

" Mr Robertson said it ignored the context of violence and that women were more likely to use violence in self defence.

" Mr Robertson said many men in stopping violence programmes would often report being hit by their partners.

" "Mostly, they are probably telling the truth, at least part of it. But a useful question is -- are you afraid of her? In my experience the question is met with incredulity. `No, she is just a midget, a pesky fly. I can deal to her anytime I like'."

" Mr Robertson said it was the fear engendered by men's violence, or simply the threat of violence, that gave abusive men power and control over their partner.



Neville Robertson is commenting from the only information that he has about violence experienced by men - from the comments made by some men who have been told (by the Courts) to attend an "Abuse Intervention Project" counselling that Robertson is involved with.

Anecdotal comments from men who are likely to be violent themselves is a completely unrepresentative sample of men for Robertson to be drawing any conclusions about the incidence or effects of abuse and violence against men.

Such a basic fundamental flaw in research methodology is staggering for even an undergraduate student, and intolerable for a practicing academic.

 

Robertson "studies": Are women as violent as men?


Neville Robertson claims to have "recently undertaken a study on whether women are as violent as men."

(refer Timaru Herald, 23 Nov 2005, "Studies show violence is mostly male")

After 15 years of talking about mens violence and denigrating the possibility that men too may be victims, one should be extremely skeptical of this "recent study".

What was Neville Robertson's methodology? Robertson has not made any approaches to active New Zealand men's groups where individuals have been vocal about being victims of violence. Such an approach would be expected of a Year 1 Undergraduate project.


But more to the point: What is the purpose of such a study? One should ask this intellectual limpet whether he sees many equivalent studies in medicine: "Is heart disease worse than liver disease?"

Based on Neville Robertson's sorry track record, one can only conclude that the purpose of his study is to belittle the importance of any concerns of males who are victims of abuse or violence.

 

Neville Robertson - "But" Specialist


From the Timaru Herald
23 November 2005
"Studies show violence is mostly male"



Quotation:
Mr Robertson said many men in stopping violence programmes would often report being hit by their partners. "Mostly, they are probably telling the truth, at least part of it. But a useful question is -- are you afraid of her?

Quotation:
Mr Robertson said probably some women might be violent, but nearly all batterers were men.



The "but"s are clear: They negate lack of consideration for the preceding statement.

If some women are violent, that is an issue of concern in itself. Neville Robertson exposes his bias by negating the importance of that concern by telling us that "nearly all batterers are men"

Neville Robertson needs to start considering the problem of violence. The issue is not a competition between men and women to see who is the most or worst perpetrator.

 

"Watering Down" Neville Robertson


The Waikato Times, 17 December 2001
"Violent crime rates soar", includes the comment:

"University community psychologist Neville Robertson said a "watering down" of police arrest policies was to blame for the increase in domestic violence offences and some of the murders."



More rhetoric. No substance.

 

Time for Neville Robertson to face up to his problem


In the Waikato Times 31 October 2001, Robertson says that it's "time for men to face up to problem"

He makes assertions that
"Most men continue to collude with violence against women"

" Most men are accessories (to abuse and rape) - before or after the fact"

Robertson says that is not extreme.

Robertson says that "Most men don't beat their women partners but many of them fail to speak up when anti-women sentiments are being voiced. Or at best, they politely move away"

One hopes that Robertson considers this blog as a NON-failure to speak up when anti-MEN sentiments are being voiced.


Robertson seems to think himself almost smart for his willingness to say what "most men" are guilty of. One can almost see him adjusting his own self purchased halo as he makes such allegations.

It's NOT smart Neville. Abuse in any form is not smart. And unsubstantiated denigration of men is no less a form of abuse just because the targets are male.

And to repeat the slogan that Robertson used in the October 2001 news report: "If you are not part of the solution, then maybe you are part of the problem".

It's time for men and women to work together to find solutions, with mutual respect, and mutual condemnation of obnoxious behaviour, from wherever it occurs.

It's time that generalised anti male rhetoric - such as Robertson consistently employs - is seen for what it really is - abuse. It's time Robertson is called up on his own obnoxious behaviour.

 

"Main Research Field" of Neville Robertson


Neville Robertson describes his "main research field" as being "family violence"

The ONLY violence that Robertson considers is violence perpetrated by men.

It's a very worthy aim to stamp out such violence, but such a worthy aim is no excuse to turn a blind eye to other violence, or represent only this violence as "family violence".

Apart from helping to set up the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project in the early 1990s, Robertson has done surprisingly little more in the field since.

Qualitative research, while useful, is not any basis for drawing conclusions and making generalisations that should properly only be derived from quantitative research, with proper error analysis.

 

Neville Robertson attacks Union of Fathers


(Dr Robertson) said the Union of Fathers talked in terms of men's rights but the issue was really what was in the best interests of the children. "I really get concerned that maybe what's happening here is we get a vocal group talking about their assumed rights and taking the attention off what is in the best interests of their children."

(NZ Herald 10 September 2001, Family Court 'not anti-men,' says psychologist)

The above statement from Robertson is basically just a rant denigrating the Union of Fathers, without any evidence to back up his assertions.

Note that it is Robertson, and not the Union of Fathers who is talking about "men's rights". If the Union of Fathers has talked about "Men's Rights" then Robertson has not provided any context.

There is nothing wrong about any group of men talking about men's rights, just as there is nothing wrong with women talking about women's rights. Such discussions are not necessarily incompatible with other issues that have (and should have) a focus on the best interests of the children.

Neville Robertson has obviously never bothered to find out what the concerns of fathers are associated with the family court.

Nevill Robertson should get out of the field and leave a vacancy for a new breed of researcher who is concerned about the rights of men, women and children - and who fully appreciates that the Family Court should not be a rubber stamp to the alienation of children from their fathers.

He could begin to understand that both men and women are capable of evil - especially in the context of a separation ..... but far more importantly that both men and women are capable of tremendous love for their children. The Family Court is not a place for acting out gender beliefs, but a place for innovation in ways of truly considering the best interests of the children.

Perhaps Robertson could listen to the Union of Fathers ...... just once may be a profound start...... They are probably not an organisation who have all the answers, but they are certainly not an organisation who deserve the public denigration that Robertson offers them.

 

Neville Robertson needs to go back to school.


Neville Robertson, supposedly an expert in psychology, needs to go back to school:

"The vast majority of perpetrators of violence were men", Dr Robertson said. (NZ Herald, 10 Sept 2001).

Neville Robertson is wrong.

Psychology deserves more than opinions from Women's Refuge, Rape Crisis etc. Unfortunately such beliefs obviously colour his work.


(Robertson needs to urgently look at the results of the Dunedin longitudinal study, for example)

 

More on Robertson's excuses for bias


Continuing from the NZ Herald report of 10 September, 2001 (Refer last blog)

Robertson: He accepted there would be some men who were unfairly denied access to their children, but said the university's research showed there were also any number of women who unfairly lost custody of their children.



Robertson's idea of fairness seems to be that as long as some women are unfairly treated, then the system is ok.

It doesn't address the question of bias at all.


And, by the way, note that the "research" is not specified. What did the research consist of? Note that ALL of Robertson's work and concerns are about women as victims. These are legitimate concerns, but is no basis for comment on bias, which necessitates a far more scientific approach than listening to and reporting the narratives of women who say they are victims.

Robertson should know that there is more to supporting women than denigrating men.

 

Neville Robertson on the Family Court


From the NZ Herald, 10 September 2001
"Family Court 'not anti-men,' says psychologist"

"The Union of Fathers is misrepresenting the role of the Family Court, says a University of Waikato psychologist who believes there is no systematic bias against men within the court.

"Neville Robertson, a community psychologist at the University of Waikato, said he did not think there were strong grounds for the Union of Fathers to believe there was a bias against men in the Family Court."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Has Neville Robertson ever talked to groups of fathers who have concerns about the Family Court? The answer is NO.

He makes ill-informed comments like he has above from a position of profound ignorance. If there is a grievance associated with gender, Robertson automatically argues against the male perspective.

Robertson uses his qualifications to present legitimacy. He has never carried out any form of objective study into bias in the Family Court.

 

What are concerns about Neville Robertson?


Neville Robertson became integrally involved in an "Abuse Intervention Project" where men, usually directed to the programme from the courts, are counselled about their violence. That's ok by itself, but he has lost sight of the FULL community with his relatively narrow experience of violence that reaches the court system.

His experience is with violence by men, and his statements show that he has swallowed the belief that violence is only a problem associated with men

All his statements on gender issues appear to have this underlying assumption. Men are bad, and need to change. Women are victims.

His complete lack of experience or study of wider issues where men are also victims have not stopped Robertson from commenting on such issues - using his qualifications as a Community Psychologist to support his opinion, rather than any objective study.

It's a sloppy and simplistic approach, to treat only men as perpetrators. And it's extremely harmful because it focuses on gender rather than the problem: violence.

Neville Robertson needs to get out of his ivory tower and visit the real world. He claims to be a community psychologist, but the concerns about his work center around his lack of appreciation of what a community consists of.

In the real world there are both men and women. Neville Robertson ignores the concerns of men, and even worse speaks out against those concerns. In doing so he condones abuse suffered by men including physical, emotional and financial abuse, and false allegations of abuse. Blind advocacy of women in custodial disputes also condones the abuse of children where the woman may be responsible or partially responsible for unnecessarily alienating the child from the father.

Finally, Neville Robertson is entitled to his opinion, but when he speaks out as a University Community Psychologist the community is entitled to expect that his statements have more of an academic basis than a personal opinion.

 

What does Robertson say about himself?


This is the information that Robertson presents about himself on the web:

Dr Neville R. Robertson -BA Cant MSocSc DipPsych(Com) PhD WaikatoSenior Lecturer. Neville teaches in the Community Psychology programme of which he is currently the Convenor. He has a particular interest in family violence - mainly men's violence against women and children - an area in which he has worked for over 15 years as a researcher (often in collaboration with Ruth Busch of the Law School), as a practitioner (facilitates groups for men who batter) and consultant (providing training and advice to agencies).

Research Interests:
As a community psychologist, Neville has a strong preference for applied research on community issues, particularly those in which issues of social justice are at stake. This includes programme evaluation - research which helps the development of social services and assesses their effectiveness. He is particularly interested in institutional responses to violence against women. Other areas of interest are child abuse, the prevention of family violence, crime prevention generally, community development, and gender and cultural justice.

 

Warning - Neville Robertson


This blog is a warning for people to be extremely careful with information from this man.

He is a man who is arguably doing the most in New Zealand to sabotage the interests of men who are fighting for issues where men are disadvantaged.

His name is Neville Robertson.

He is a Community Psychologist from the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?