
Violence Against Women in Papua New Guinea - monort
http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/
======
walrus01
Port Moresby is one of the more dangerous places to travel, no matter what
gender you are:

[https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/papua-new-
guinea/sa...](https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/papua-new-
guinea/safety-and-security)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/22/population.dav...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/22/population.davidfickling)

[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/09/20129289...](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/09/201292892518329408.html)

If you're male you're less likely to get raped by the local criminal gangs
(who I presume are predominantly not interested in sexual relations with men),
but just as likely to get stabbed/beaten/robbed and left in a ditch.

~~~
rustynails
Thank you for saying that violence can happen to anyone. In Australia, we have
a very sexist attitude toward violence. The media (and our own minister for
sexism) only ever talk about male perpetrators and female victims.

This article mentions twice that the majority of victims are women(about 2/3),
but it purposely ignores violence against men.

My wife said to me the other day, "today's society is more sexist than we've
ever seen, isn't it". Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more.

Violence against anyone should be condemned, regardless of the gender of the
perpetrator and the gender of the victim.

I like HN because it is less sexist than most information sources, however,
the price of non-sexism is eternal vigilance. This article raises a tragic
issue In an unnecessarily sexist way. My wife is right yet again.

~~~
vacri
As a fellow Australian, you're misrepresenting the issue. Yes, there is
currently a government program to try and reduce domestic violence against
women. Yes, domestic violence happens in the other direction, and in gay
couples as well, but the preponderance of the damage done is received by
women. It's a social problem, and the government's job is to try to help
social problems.

There's also social movements around violence against men. Have a look at
Aussie Rules and how 'family-oriented' it has become. Long gone are the days
where playing on through a bloody face was a mark of honour. The official
football groups condemn violence left, right, and centre. It's absolute
nonsense that it's only violence against women that's being condemned.

If you honestly think today's Australia is more sexist than we've ever seen,
then you haven't had a look at how it was before. Women were legally paid
2/3rds as much as men - my mother was a teacher in the 70s and tells that
story. Similarly, it was shameful to be seen as simply being pregnant in
public, let alone breastfeeding, and there was no male analogue for that, no
physical state men could be in where they had to hide from public view. There
is plenty more, so I'd strongly encourage you to look at the rights that
first-wave feminists were fighting for, if you think that it's more sexist now
than ever before.

~~~
dlmetcalf
He's not misrepresenting the DV policy when Turnbull makes comments like,
quote: "domestic violence - which is just violence against women". 40% of DV
homicide victims in Australia are male and 20% are children (52% of those kids
killed by women). That's from Australian Institute of Criminology (2015) on 10
years of official National Homicide Monitoring Program data. Women aren't even
the majority of DV homicide victims in Australia - and homicides are at the
extreme end of gendered violence - let alone DV being exclusively against
women. Yet DV funding & research in Australia is exclusively for women.
ANROWS, WLS, White Ribbon, OurWatch, DV NSW & Vic (which are really Women's
refuge, just renamed), etc etc. all have officially gender discriminatory
chartered mandates and act accordingly. Funding isn't put towards "reducing
DV" and assigned proportionately to injury or anything. It's assigned for
"reducing DV against women", ONLY (or maybe 'women and their children', as if
fathers simply don't exist). In NSW for instance, the DV portfolio isn't part
of Health or Justice, but is officially owned by "Women NSW" (a genuine
matriarchy). Now feminism is all well and good when in cases where it truly is
about equal rights, fair opportunities, etc. But that's not what's going on
here.

DV has become massively politicised, and if you can't recognise that, when a
$30M media campaign is announced within 24 hours of a Federal election, then
you're not paying attention. The DV agenda in Australia is far more about
helping Turnbull look different to Abbott, because LNP was (rightfully)
hemorrhaging in female voter polls. Every other party to the Left has just
been trying to out-do him on that since.

If you're genuinely interested in reducing harm against women, then I
recommend taking into account data like
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/).

Australia is not PNG. Our DV problem is not caused by gender pay inequality
etc. Neither is that the cause in most advanced economies (look at
Scandinavian countries with up to 50% of women reporting DV, which having the
highest rates of gender equality in pay, opportunities, etc in the world).

I agree first-wave feminism had a lot to fight for. I agree there's still
issues for gender equality in Australia. But we're also completely ignoring
other gender inequalities, like that 20% more women are graduating from
universities today than men, while the overwhelming number of gender-based
scholarships here still exclusively support women.

Australia has a long way to go before it starts truly understanding what being
anti gender discrimination actually means. "The standard you want past is the
standard you accept", should also imply a single standard. When we talk about
violence being cause by a lack of respect in relationships, we should be
dealing with that by building _mutual_ respect, not just building more gender
divides. There's no discussion at all of the impact of psychological abuse in
DV relationships against men, despite there being more male suicides every
week than all the women killed in DV here each year. Nor is there of plenty of
other issues related to DV.

I'm aware this is particularly sensitive topic in IT, because I _know_
discrimination against women still exists in a lot of companies. I've
witnessed it more in private companies than public ones, but can attest that
it varies WIDELY between companies. There's times when I've even sought to
hire women over men, for the sole reason that some environments were severely
unbalanced, that it was harming performance. There's also cases though where
it goes the other way, including that women are generally paid more than males
upon graduation in this industry (maybe the ones who make it through are
better, but who knows).

Anyway, I just think the whole discussion needs to be FAR more nuanced than
what we've seen across media and government.

~~~
vacri
You are making the mistake of assuming that DV is only represented by homicide
counts. It's a bit like those anti-abortion campaigners who only use third-
trimester abortion as their talking point, when third-trimester abortion
accounts for less than 0.1% of abortions. Using the extreme case in place of
the general case doesn't do anyone any favours. Your link does point out that
violence swings both ways and that women tend to be the more violent partner,
but it also points out that women are more likely to be injured. Men aren't
getting dangerously injured by DV to the point where there's enough to support
several battered men's shelters in every major city.

And you know something? "So what"? So what if women get this one in their
favour? Who really gives a fuck? Men get plenty of other things in their
favour, let the women 'win' one for once. I never see this kind of impassioned
reasoning and stats-counting from men arguing for things that benefit women.
Women's sport funding is an absolute joke in comparison to men's funding in
this country, but I don't see frothy stats about that. Similarly there are
government awareness programs targeting _men 's_ depression that women don't
get. And is 20% more women graduating uni really that much of an advantage,
given that men _heavily_ outgun women in trades apprenticeships (more
lucrative than many uni degrees, certainly more lucrative than mine), and
degrees mean less and less as time goes on?

You talk about building respect, but you're also arguing _against_ any effort
that's not totally even-handed if it benefits women. Targeted campaigns work,
and there's no reason why we can't have one for men in the future, but
seriously, by demanding perfect you are being the enemy of good.

Yes, there's sexism against men. I remember in my early twenties when a woman
who liked me punched me on the arm so hard it left a sizable bruise. I didn't
mention it, because as a man you're 'supposed to just take it', and of course
if I did the opposite it'd make the entire pub fall silent. Likewise, a hippy
acquaintance of mine says that he feels like he can't watch children play in
the park because people act like he's a paedophile, when he's just enjoying
kids having fun. That doesn't mean we should mope about government initiatives
because they don't target us. Do you decry any assistance aborigines get that
white folks don't? Think that Abstudy is unfair compared to Austudy? Do you
decry language assistance to immigrants because aussies don't get assistance
to learn foreign languages?

I fully support the anti-domestic-violence ads, because they get this
distasteful topic out into the open and overtly say "this is not on". I don't
care that it's targeted to violence against women. It's a good thing in and of
itself (the ads, not the violence :) ), and whether or not it's politically
motivated is beside the point of the good it can do. And if you want actual
gender equality, that means giving up a lot of things that us men take for
granted, like the aforementioned sports funding.

Perhaps a better way for me to put it is this: stop whiteanting things that
women have built to better their lot, and do something to better men's lot (or
everyone's lot). I see this in a lot of complaints that men have about gender
bias against men - they only start talking when women succeed at getting a
project off the ground. I have _never_ seen a man talk about DV in a public
forum without DV against women starting that conversation, and a decade ago I
used to do the same thing: pointing out DV against men and supplying links,
but only in response to discussion of DV against women. Thing is though, those
projects to help people do take a lot of work, and they're better for society
in general. So instead of decrying the ones that do exist, people should
promote ones that aren't off the ground yet if they feel there's an imbalance.
Do something constructive for the men (or for all), rather than destroying
something for the women. Inevitably the "what about the men" is forgotten
about until the next time a women's initiative takes off. So rather than say
"God, that's sexist!", say "Fucking about time we got into a public discussion
about DV and how to stop it!". Talking about DV doesn't mean we can't also
talk about mental health, and it may even help strengthen the push to improve
mental health.

I do agree that the topic is more nuanced, but the media, government, and
general public aren't into talking that level of nuance (to whit: One Nation
is going to get two senators and possibly a lower house seat, and Hanson makes
Trump look educated).

~~~
dlmetcalf
> "And you know something? \"So what\"? So what if women get this one in their
> favour? Who really gives a fuck? "

Maybe the rest of the family of kids who women bludgeoned to death, burnt
alive, cut into pieces, stuffed down drains etc (all recent cases here). Maybe
also the guys who've been stabbed a few too many times, hit in the back of the
head with frying pans, etc.

p.s. Hospital record audits show extremely similar injuries for both genders
from DV in Australia, with the exception that men present with more
lacerations (because women use weapons more) and women present with slightly
more bruising (because men rarely present unless life threatening). The only
likely exception to that is Aboriginal communities, with somewhat different
traditional gender roles (women at significantly higher risk) than the wider
population and more commonly impacted by poverty, drugs & alcohol etc.

~~~
vacri
> _You are making the mistake of assuming that DV is only represented by
> homicide counts._

I'm just going to quote myself here. You're both arguing from outliers and
arguing from emotion.

Hell, fuck it. You win. The anti-DV campaign should stop because it's not
completely even-handed. Fuck those infants beaten to death because their dads
can't hear the footy. We should close down all the battered women's shelters
as well. Those beaten humans with broken bones in their face are clearly
benefitting at the expense of us males. Never mind that we can use success
with anti-DV for women as a springboard for anti-DV for men, getting it into
the public dialogue.

After all, if we can't help _everyone_ , then we shouldn't help _anyone_.
Absolutely no step of the way shouldn't ever be even-handed. That would be
unfair.

~~~
dlmetcalf
Was that you who flagged me for quoting your expletives? Or are you flagging
me for quoting AIC 2015 data on 10 years on NHMP and case notes?

------
Mz
_Every day most of the crimes committed are against women from the Port
Moresby slum areas._

Ah, systemic poverty rears its ugly head again. This is, no doubt, related in
part to the fact that 97% of the land is owned as tribal land, which seriously
hampers modern economic development:

 _The PNG legislature has enacted laws in which a type of tenure called
"customary land title" is recognised, meaning that the traditional lands of
the indigenous peoples have some legal basis to inalienable tenure. This
customary land notionally covers most of the usable land in the country (some
97% of total land area);[56] alienated land is either held privately under
state lease or is government land. Freehold title (also known as fee simple)
can only be held by Papua New Guinean citizens.[57]

Only some 3% of the land of Papua New Guinea is in private hands_

American indigenous peoples also face this problem: You cannot get a mortgage
to build a house if the land it sits on cannot be taken by the bank if you
default on your payments. This is part of why indigenous peoples are so very
poor.

I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps there is some answer that preserves
the tribal lands system and also alleviates the stranglehold that has on
development. But I have pondered this on and off over the years and come up
with no ideas on how to fix it and have not yet seen anything written up that
sounds plausible.

In the US, tribes that have improved their economic status seem to mostly do
so by taking advantage of the legal loophole that they are sovereign states,
not subjected to state laws, and they create casinos on their lands. This
provides employment as well as becomes a cash cow for paying for schools and
the like.

Most people do not think casinos represent serious economic development per
se. It is a way to filch some wealth from the pockets of the white men that
stole their lands, but real wealth is generally rooted in industry and
commerce. Casinos are largely a means to redistribute money, not create new
value. Merely redistributing money is very much decried as a bad thing when we
do it in the form of welfare.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Casinos are largely a means to redistribute money, not create new value.
> Merely redistributing money is very much decried as a bad thing when we do
> it in the form of welfare.

This would apply just as much to the music industry as it does to the gambling
industry. Casinos _do_ create value; they create entertainment value. It
doesn't become less valuable when a company you don't like produces it.

~~~
Mz
As someone who writes fiction, I respectfully disagree. Art, music and other
forms of so called entertainment often elevate the mind and spirit, help
people cope with emotional issues and accomplish a great deal more than
pissing the night away.

Video games and other forms of entertainment are generally going to have more
value for developing people than your typical game of gambling.

It has nothing to do with me personally disliking it. It has to do with me
being concerned that this solution doesn't add real value to the system to
help people eat nutritious food, breathe clean air and so on.

I think entertainment has real value for the human species. But not all
entertainment is equally valuable.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> I think entertainment has real value for the human species. But not all
> entertainment is equally valuable.

> It has nothing to do with me personally disliking it.

~~~
Mz
My father was a gambler. I deal left-handed because you couldn't have a
relationship to him if you didn't play cards, so I learned to deal at age 4
when I was too young to understand that mirroring what he did caused it to be
the opposite hand.

I caught him cheating when I was 12 because I was skinning him alive and his
ego couldn't take it. We were betting with Christmas cookies and I was winning
about 2/3s of the hands and he balked at that.

I have zero problem with gambling and I no way _dislike_ it.

I still believe that, generally speaking, music (your example of
entertainment) as well as art, fiction and many other forms of entertainment
generally provide greater value to the human race than gambling does.

So, please, kindly, stop with the ad hominems -- "YOU just don't like it" \--
which are against the rules here, and give me your argument as to why gambling
has as much or more value as other forms of entertainment or kindly leave me
alone.

Thanks.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> give me your argument as to why gambling has as much or more value as other
> forms of entertainment or kindly leave me alone

I hardly need to do this; you are self-refuting.

You've said that better forms of entertainment produce value by "elevating the
mind and spirit" (this is a raw statement of your personal values, not a
phenomenon that can be observed) and "helping people cope with emotional
issues" (as do all activities).

You've said that gambling is not valuable because it doesn't "help people eat
nutritious food, breathe clean air, and so on". Neither do any other forms of
entertainment, such as the art and fiction you praise. You've complained that
the economic effect of gambling is purely redistributive. Once you've assumed
away the benefits, that's true of almost all services.

Your stated concerns make no sense. People who like gambling and dislike
pleasure reading are alien to me, but you have no grounds from which to say
that they're wrong to believe they get more value from the gambling.

------
distances
This was a harrowing article. The described cases are surreal in how the
brutal violence seems to be an everyday occurrence, something that the men
just happen to do when drunk.

I knew things are bad in PNG, but I didn't really comprehend how bad it can
be.

------
gheeohm
I came across this a few years ago watching an interesting documentary about
surfing and Papuan culture called "Splinters". Even taking into context
cultural differences, this can be considered nothing but horrific.

------
internaut
Cruel and unusual violence is also the case for the South African townships.
The crime statistics for that country are a fiction. One judge said she never
met a girl over the age of twelve who had not been raped.

------
chrischen
The problem is Western and other more developed countries still do business
with the country, inevitably enabling and persisting their systemic
corruption.

See ExxonMobil projects in PNG:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPIUFZl7f-U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPIUFZl7f-U)

------
HillaryBriss
article gave me a whole new perspective on Papua New Guinea. what these women
face is horrendous.

