Open letter to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission


This letter asks the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to more equitable in it’s approach to women and men. The HRC has several systems to protect women’s human rights, but no explicit systems for men. Consequently a number of men’s human rights issues are not being addressed. For example,

  • we have laws the explicitly discriminate against men
  • boys are not protecting from genital cutting
  • men are treated more harshly in the justice system including receiving longer sentences for the same crimes.

I ask the HRC to apply their human rights approach to the rights of women and men. For example, consulting with men and men’s groups about their human rights and including their issues when setting priorities.

I point out there are systemic issues that the HRC needs to consider

  • the HRC’s lack of explicit policy to protect men’s human rights
  • cognitive biases against men
  • a wider human rights system that favours women over men
  • explicit opposition to men’s rights in the wider human rights system

I then ask if the HRC will take some specific action to protect men’s human rights.

The Letter

Kia Ora Chief Commissioner,

Thank you for your previous response. I have decided to respond with an open letter because the HRC wants feedback from the public1 and the UN says the HRC should be accountable to the public.2

In the deep shadow of world war two, the people of the world asked “what can we do to avoid another holocaust?” The United Nations answered the question by developing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The declaration is a commitment to the basic moral principle of the Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated. It recognises that all human beings have equal moral value. If it is wrong for me to hurt you, it’s wrong for you to hurt me.

The declaration itself is not sufficient to protect our human rights. That requires people to take action against human rights violations.

The narrow path travelled by the champions of human rights is filled with obstacles and distractions. There is always a risk of drifting from the path toward an unintended and unknown destination.

This letter is a signal to the Human Rights Commission. You are not on the path.

The map for the path

The Human rights Commission has a map. They developed a “human rights approach” with six items.3

  • Linking decision-making at every level to human rights standards set out in the relevant human rights Covenants and Conventions
  • Non-discrimination among individuals and groups through equal enjoyment of rights and obligations by all
  • Identifying all relevant human rights involved, and balancing rights, where necessary, prioritising those of the most vulnerable people, to maximise respect for all rights and rights-holders
  • Emphasis on the participation of individuals and groups in decision-making that affects them
  • Empowerment of individuals and groups by their use of rights as leverage for action and to legitimise their voice in decision-making
  • Accountability for actions and decisions enabling individuals and groups to complain about decisions adversely affecting them

Where the commission is off the path

“Women and girls have the same fundamental human rights as men and boys”.[HRC 2010]4 however the HRC treats women and men very differently. This amounts to discrimination. The HRC is not identifying and balancing rights. The HRC is not including everyone in the decision making that affects them.

Here are the differences:

Services provided specifically for women

The HRC has a commissioner for women but none for men. The commissioner provides these services to New Zealand women:

  • Identifiable point of contact for issues of women’s rights
  • Writes articles5, media6, social media posts7, etc. about women’s rights
  • Represents women’s rights formal settings like before government committees and united nations8
  • Networking and joint activities with women’s groups EG National Council of Women, Pacific Women’s Watch, Māori Women’s Welfare League.9

The HRC has regular specific consultations with women about their human rights.

For example:

  • 8 meetings for reporting under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)10
  • 6 meetings for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)11

Other services the HRC provides to New Zealand women but not to men

  • Develop priorities for women’s rights [HRC 2108]12:
    • Gender based violence, Employment, Exploitation and trafficking, Health, Data collection and resource allocation
  • Website and education material specifically about women’s rights Eg ‘Women, work, and Human Rights’ pamphlet13
  • Specific projects for women’s rights eg,
    • Track Equality at work14, equal pay, gender-based violence, sexual harassment, breastfeeding
  • Make recommendations to the government and UN about specifically women’s rights

Services provided specifically for men

The HRC does not provide any specific services to men. It does provide its general services, like addressing complaints, to both men and women. However, the HRC:

  • Does not have any person responsible for men’s human rights to provide a visible point of contact, expertise, experience, networking etc.
  • Does not have specific consultations with men about their human rights
  • Has not developed any priorities for men’s human rights.
  • Does not have any explicit plans or polices for men’s human rights
  • Does not specifically monitor and report on men’s human rights

The consequence of straying off the path

The lack explicit and active protection of the rights of men and boys has consequences. Human rights violations remain ‘out of sight and out of mind’.

Boys right to bodily autonomy and self-determination ignored

In New Zealand thousands of infant boys have part of their penis removed at their parents request. Medically unnecessary circumcision violates the boy’s right to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and to be free from cruel treatment.

If adults choose circumcision that is their choice. They can consent and understand the consequences.

The HRC should have a strong position against this violation of human rights. After all, the HRC clearly rejects unnecessary genital surgery on girls15 16 and intersex children17.

The HRC says circumcision a complex issue which requires the consideration of a number of legal and human rights principles.18

There is some contradiction in international human rights law regarding circumcision. However, there is a consistent and clear position for girls, and girls and boys have the same fundamental rights. The default position should be equality and non-discrimination. However, the status quo is to accept the differential treatment of boys and girls.

If the HRC was on the path then the HRC would

  • be aware of how relevant parts of international human rights law apply to boys; and
  • be consistent in it’s position for girls, boys and intersex children; and
  • be aware of the latest science and ethics regarding circumcision; and
  • monitor and report on circumcision

Then perhaps fewer boys would lose part of their penis unnecessarily.

Men’s right to equality before the law, a fair trial, and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment ignored

Equality before the law is a fundamental right. Laws should not discriminate. However, New Zealand has laws that explicitly discriminate against men. For example, section 194 of the Crimes Act makes a male assaulting a female a specific crime.

‘Male assaults female’ has twice the maximum sentence and more restrictive bail conditions compared to the gender-neutral equivalent, common assault. It’s likely there are men in prison at the moment who would have served their time and been released if they had been women. In other words, there are men are unjustly in prison simply because they are men.

The Law Commission recommend repealing ‘male assaults female’ in 2009.

The HRC recognises the law should not take gender into account in it’s submission to the government for the Family and Whānau Violence Bill.

s 194A – Assault on person in a family relationship

The Commission agrees with the introduction of this offence. It is gender neutral, unlike the offence of male assaults female that is commonly used in domestic violence situations. … The law should reflect the seriousness of the assault and not the gender of the victim and perpetrator. [HRC 2017]19

However the HRC has not taken any opportunity to highlight this discriminatory law. Leaving men unequal under the law, and men in prison when they shouldn’t be.

Bias against men in the justice system

In additional to discriminatory laws, the justice system treats men more harshly than women.

Women who enter the justice system are filtered out at every natural attrition point more than men. Men are more likely to be prosecuted rather than given an alternative like being warned or discharged without conviction. Men are more likely to be sent to prison once convicted. Men receive longer sentences on average and are less likely to be released on parole.20

Dr Samantha Jeffries found “With other factors statistically controlled, women’s imprisonment terms were found to be substantially shorter than men’s.”21

For sexual offences, Paterson similarly found that “In terms of police decision-making processes, compared to males, a smaller proportion of females proceeded to “court action” for their offences. Furthermore, the severity of sentences handed down to males was greater than those handed down to females.”22

Clearly their is lack of substantive equality for men in the justice system. This is something the HRC should be monitoring and reporting on so these injustices can be reduced.

Failure to report

Part of the HRCs role is reporting on our human rights situation to the UN. The HRC’s reports build a foundation for the UN’s human rights structure. If human rights issues are not reported to the UN then the UN’s human rights structure can do nothing about them.

In 2015 the men’s groups sought a meeting with then Chief Commissioner David Rutherford. During the meeting he assured them that men’s rights are as important as women’s rights and considered plans to include men’s human rights issue in reports to the UN.23

However no plans were made or implemented resulting in no men’s issue being reported in the 2018 Universal Periodic Review. In contrast, the Commission held six consultations with women.

Men’s rights issues were raised in general consultations but not included in the final report with one exception. Sex disaggregated statistics for suicide was included.

The neglect of men’s human rights issues by the HRC was raised in three of the consultations.

Lost opportunity for Maori Men and other minorities

Maori have the poorer outcomes in health, education and the justice system compared Pakeha. Maori men have the poorer outcomes in health, education and the justice system compared to Maori women.

Men of other minorities face unique issues with discrimination and other human rights violations.

For example, Flage found “that both gender and ethnic discrimination occur in the rental housing market in OECD countries … minority men are the most disadvantaged.”24

Identifying and highlighting the unique issues for Maori and minority men is an opportunity to improve outcomes for them which is currently being wasted.

Wider consequences

The consequences of ignoring men’s and boys’ human rights affects more than just those men and boys whose rights are violated.

A stark reminder of this is presented by the Family Violence Death Review Committee’s latest report. In the report the follow the live path of men who end up killing their partner. The report found those men were repeatedly failed by various social services and other organisations.25 That’s a failure to protect those men’s human rights.

Why the HRC is off the path

The HRC has no explicit protections for men and boys

Explicit protections provide a formal check that the commission is on the path. Assuming men’s human rights are protected without explicitly checking is a “she’ll be right” approach to human rights.

The Human Rights Commission regularly recommends that the government explicitly protect human rights.26 27

Chief Commissioner Hunt has previously pointed out that relying on implicit protections for human rights “means means that only those in authority know whether and when… rights are being taken into account and, if it is, how it is interpreted and applied. Such arbitrariness is inconsistent with the essence of human rights.”[Hunt 2017]28

However the HRC does not have explicit policies and protections for men’s human rights. It believes that implicit protection of the human rights of men and boys is sufficient.

The HRC has not taken into account bias

The HRC is concerned about bias. This should also apply to biases against men. The HRC’s staff are subject to the same human biases that we all are.

Cognitive Bias

Cognitive bias is a bias in thinking or perception. Here are some known cognitive biases that will affect the work of the HRC.

Gender bias about gender bias

People treat gender bias differently depending on the gender affected by the bias. Gender bias against women is taken more seriously than gender bias against men.


Jussim29 compared studies looking at bias in STEM. Studies that find bias against women get cited much more than studies that find bias against men. For example,

Last, let’s consider the two older studies examining real outcomes:

Wenneras and Wold (1997) found bias favoring men, has a sample size of 114, and has been cited 1544 times.

Irvine (1999) found bias favoring women (in more recent data), had a sample size in excess of 37,000 and has been cited 32 times.

Block 201930 found gender imbalances are perceived differently for male- vs. female-dominant careers. People are more concerned about under-representation of women in male dominated careers than the other way around.

Sinclair31 finds that while affirmative action for women is seen negatively, affirmative action for men is seen even more negatively. People also feel a stronger sense of resentment when men are favoured.

People underestimate men’s support for women and overestimate their support for men

People have a perception that men do not support women. Men have a much weaker in-group bias than people believe they do and support women’s issue much more than people think.


Rudman32 found men are much less likely to show a preference for their own gender.

“A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves,” Rudman says. “This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences.”

Fortune33 found that both men and women support double standards that favour women. However, people think men would support double standards that favour men even though it is not the case.

Diekman34 found “participants consistently underestimated men’s support for female-stereotypic positions on issues… this error rose from perceptions that men would oppose policies that favored women’s interests.”

Gender bias in empathy and response to suffering

Many studies find that people tend to have less empathy and concern for men’s suffering compared to women’s suffering.


Reynolds35 found

  • people tend to be more concerned about female suffering,
  • people think male suffering is more deserved or fair,
  • people are more motivated to punish men (see also, Jeffries36).
  • These biases extend to group-level harm.

Stuijfzand found that both male and female adolescents are more empathic to females.37

Follingstad found that “psychologists … rated the husband’s behavior as more likely to be psychologically abusive and more severe in nature than the wife’s use of the same actions.”38

Cesario’s “Results revealed that male victims of workplace sexual harassment were perceived less favorably than female victims were and were perceived as having suffered less than female victims did.”39

Leiby found human rights campaigns that show feminine victims are more likely to result in direct action to end the abuse.40

Bias against ‘privileged’ groups

Winegard finds that some people to have a “bias against information that portrays a perceived privileged group more favorably than a perceived victims’ group.” 41 This bias exists even though these people believe they should not evaluate groups differently.

Von Hipple42 investigated bias among social scientists and provides this insight:

As one of our respondents wrote, “I found it curious how contradictory I was in responding! For instance, when science ostensibly reveals that the majority group has certain advantages, I say it’s ‘bad,’ but when the minority group has certain advantages, I say it’s ‘good!’”

Structural Bias

Structural bias is “an entire network of rules and practices”43 which can disadvantage certain groups.

Structural discrimination can occur unintentionally, and includes informal practices that have become embedded in everyday organisational life and effectively become part of the system, i.e. “how we do things around here.” Put simply, it can be discrimination by habit, rather than intent.[HRC 2012]44

The HRC exists within a large network of organisations that work to protect human rights. A lot of work has been done to protect women’s rights. This has created a pool of resources and experience which the HRC can draw on. Unfortunately, there is not the same depth of resources and experience for men’s human rights.

“Social pressure can cause evidence to pile up on one side of a debate or issue, while evidence on the other side is systematically screened out. A person who looks at the evidence as it is presented, then, will form a warped view of the matter, even if she rationally evaluates the evidence at hand. I will suggest that whenever there exists social pressure to conceal evidence on one side of a topic, we should suspect that a (possibly dangerous) blind spot is lurking somewhere, due to this mechanism. The catch, and it is a big catch, is that the blind spot will not be recognizable by people who simply look at the evidence as it is presented. They will be unaware that their view of the world is distorted.”

Hrishikesh Joshi45

During the recent UPR-Info mid-term reporting webinar the HRC representative acknowledged that it is easier to advocate for certain groups because their human rights issues are well established.

Gender equality means equality between men and women. In an environment where almost all of the resources for gender equality are focused on women, the term has, in practice, become a synonym for “women’s empowerment”. This is noted by Bates46 and Baker47.

For example,

  • The United Nations entity for gender equality is UN Women48
  • The Sustainable Development Goal for gender equality only mentions women and girls.49
  • The WEF Gender Gap Index explicitly ignores men’s inequalities.50

The result is men’s inequalities are not considered ‘gender equality’ issues.

Using the term ‘gender equality’ but only focusing on women is an example, of structural discrimination [that refers] to “inclusion in principle, through use of encompassing and inclusive speech, together with a resource-based exclusion supporting disparity in fact.”[HRC 2012]51

Demonstrable bias in the wider system

Neglect of men and boys rights has been identified in the wider human rights ecosystem. For example:

“Some adults are in deep denial of the gender issue when boys are at the losing end of the disparities. ….Sad to say, there is outright sex discrimination against boys in the [Children’s Rights] Movement.”

[UN 2019]52

Despite the grave and widespread nature of sexual violence against men and boys, the current international human rights framework is inadequate for addressing this problem. … No human rights instruments explicitly address sexual violence against men.

[Stemple 2009]53

The results show men’s issues are given less attention than women’s issues by the UN and WHO. … Therefore, the observed differences could have two possible explanations: (a) lack of awareness of men’s issues by UN and WHO staff, or (b) bias (conscious or unconscious) against men’s or in favour of women’s issues by UN and WHO staff.

[Nuzzo 2020]54

My own research found that only 0.1% of Universal Periodic Review recommendations containing gender words like woman/man or female/male are about men’s human rights issues.

Opposition to men’s rights in the human rights system

Universal human rights means that everybody’s rights are viewed on equal terms. When prioritising resources or balancing rights, everyone should be treated as equals and have their needs considered.

However there is scepticism about “men’s rights” in human rights and gender equality communities. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women55 and UN Women56 have noted their concern about men’s rights groups.

Concern seems to be about the actions of advocates rather than with the principle of equal rights for women and men. However, some of the criticism of these groups threaten to undermine that principle.

Flood57 and Busch58 argue that men’s rights groups are using the language of ‘equality’ but don’t really mean it. They believe the groups are co-opting progressive language for political goals and are really against gender equality.

That view would allow them to disregard this letter. Rather than a good faith engagement they would see it as an attempt at manipulation for anti-equality goals.

Everyone should be able to advocate for their rights. If the belief that men’s rights advocates are not acting in good faith is widely believed in the human rights system, then how do men advocate for their rights? Can the men rely on the human rights system to protect their rights if the system does not believe them?

Explicit opposition in the wider human rights system

A zero-sum approach to gender equality leads some organisations are explicitly opposed to men’s rights. For example, the “50/50 by 2030 Foundation”, a gender parity initiative at the University of Canberra, sees egalitarian values and including men’s rights in public discussion as a problem for ‘gender equality’.

The moderate perspective combines an egalitarian set of views around gender equality in the workplace and at home, …

as well as a strong desire to see men’s rights equally represented in public discussion of equality issues. Given that 62 per cent of Australians align with the moderate position, and its value system this represents a significant barrier to gender equality 59

Assuming different treatment is justified under ‘special measures’

Different treatment is sometimes justified. Some groups are always disadvantaged and require permanent special treatment. For example, children. For groups that where disadvantage can be overcome our human rights framework allows for ‘special measures’. Special measures are differential treatment to address historic or structural discrimination.

Special measures to ensure equality contribute to, but are not a substitute for, programmes for all New Zealanders designed to ensure access to decent work, healthy affordable housing, and effective delivery of health, education and other services. Special measures are just one way of ensuring equality of outcomes for the diverse groups that make up New Zealand society.

[HRC 2012]60

Only certain types of measures qualify as special measures. “Special measures must be necessary to the group they are aimed at, tailored to the specific disadvantage, carried out in good faith, proportional and temporary.”[HRC 2012]61

It is not necessary to have special measures to protect women’s rights. Men’s rights can be protected with similar measures which makes the measures normal rather than special.

Some of the HRC’s measures are not tailored at a specific disadvantage. Having only a commissioner for women and having consultations specifically with women does not address a specific disadvantage. “The measure should address the actual disadvantage of the group targeted and there must a demonstrable link between the measure and what it seeks to achieve.” [HRC 2010]62

Some of the measure in place for women’s human rights are permanent. For example, the requirement to report to CEDAW

Specific, proportional and temporary programs like the ‘tracking equality at work’ program are much more likely to be justified.

Overall, the different treatment of women and men at the HRC cannot be justified under ‘special measures’ provision for different treatment. The ‘special measures’ for women at the HRC should not be special. They should be normal.

How to return to the path

The HRC should apply their human rights approach to men’s human rights.

Linking decision-making at every level to human rights standards

The commission must make decisions based on human rights standards. The commission must consider how the standards apply to men and boys.

For example, both ICESCR and CCPR explicitly require States ensure equal enjoyment of rights for men and women.

Non-discrimination among individuals and groups through equal enjoyment of rights and obligations by all

“Reflect on your own biases and be open to challenging and changing them. Resolve to act in a way that addresses them” [HRC 2020]63

The commission must address the cognitive and structural biases affecting the HRC to prevent discrimination against men and boys. They can do this by, among other things, having a policy to explicitly include men’s human rights.

Addressing structural bias

The HRC must follow it’s own advice and examine itself with a structural discrimination lens:

Consciously examining organisational rules, systems and practices through the “lens” of structural discrimination allows possible bias to come into view. Only when any bias becomes visible, can structural discrimination be appropriately addressed.

[HRC 2012]64

Addressing structural discrimination within a system or particular organisation will mean interrogating the ways things have always been done. This could involve returning to first principles…[HRC 2012] 65

A look at the HRC through the lens of structural bias will reveal a bias that works against the rights of men and boys.

Identifying all relevant human rights involved, and balancing rights to maximise respect for all rights and rights-holders

The commission must monitor men’s human rights issues and consult with men and men’s groups to be able to identify the rights involved. Gaining an in-depth understanding of men’s and women’s rights will allow the commission to balance and prioritise it’s work for all rights-holders.

The HRC must be an expert in the area of men’s rights and women’s rights.

Participation of individuals and groups in decision-making that affects them

The commission must consult with men and men’s groups when making decision that will affect men. For example, when the commission decides what to prioritise. They must include people with expertise and experience in men’s issues and people who can represent the communities of various kinds of men.

Paris Principles

The Paris Principles set out the minimum standards for the roles and responsibilities of NHRIs like the HRC. They are broadly accepted as the test of an institution’s legitimacy and credibility.

Involving men and men’s groups is a requirement of the “Paris Principles” principle of pluralism. Pluralism is the idea that the HRC should be representative of a wide range of societal groups and include a wide range of groups in their work. The UN training handbook on NHRIs66 points out that the HRC should:

  • Have staff from a wide range of people from different societal groups; and
  • Have programming and outreach to a wide range of groups; and
  • Reflect pluralism in it’s work, eg choice of research and education materials; and
  • Have procedures that allow co-operation with a wide range of groups; and
  • Make sure that over time groups feel included; and
  • Not seek to dominate or control relationships with civil society.

Policy Statement

Additionally, the HRC’s Human Rights Policy Statement67 says “The Commission will engage appropriately with stakeholders and communities so they can be involved in the development of solutions to issues that affect them.

Empowerment of individuals and groups to legitimise their voice in decision-making

The Commission must support the work of people advocating for men’s human rights.

The Commission must publicly and specifically support men’s human rights.

Accountability for actions and decisions enabling individuals and groups to complain about decisions adversely affecting them

The commission must be accountable to the public for the decisions it makes. The UN says the HRC should be accountable to the public.68

It must have a complaints procedure for complaints about the commission. The procedure must be clear to the public and the public should feel that their complaints are taken seriously by the commission. The Ombudsman provides guidance for best practice here.

The Commission must be transparent about the decisions it makes. More is required than ambiguously “consulting with stakeholders”. Public trust requires transparency. “Trust us, we know what we are doing” is not sufficient.

Questions for the HRC

Does the HRC believe that it current approach to protecting men’s human right is the best practice and an exemplar for others to follow?

Will the HRC address the structural and cognitive biases that affect the HRC?

Will the HRC provide easily accessible information about their men’s human rights policy/position statement on their website?

Will the Human rights commission publicly condemn discrimination against men?

Including issue raised in this letter and in my submission to the UPR. For example:

  • Discrimination in the justice system
  • Laws that discriminates against men
  • Discrimination against men who are victims of family violence

Will the HRC make a social media post saying “men’s rights are human rights” to compliment the times it has said ‘women’s rights are human rights’, ‘disabled rights are human rights’, ‘intersex rights are human rights’, ‘rainbow rights are human rights’, ‘trans rights are human rights’ etc.

Nga Mihi

  1. HRC Statement of Intent 2019/20 – 2022/23
  2. National Human Rights Institutions – History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities – United Nations 2010 page 36 “National human rights institutions have two levels of accountability, one to the State and one to the public.”
  4. Human Rights in New Zealand 2010 – New Zealand Human Rights Commission – page 281
  5. Karanina Sumeo: Women in prisons deserve human rights –
  6. EG Women more vulnerable to job losses, commissioner says – RNZ -6 August 2020
  7. EG social media post by Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo – EEO Commissioner on 6 March 2020 – “Kia ora everyone, Women’s rights are human rights! As we prepare to celebrate International Women’s Day this Sunday, take a moment to appreciate the women in your lives – our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters. This year’s theme is, “I am Generation Equality: Realizing Women’s Rights”. While women and girls have progressed in many areas of human rights, many still face inequalities in existence today especially Māori & Pacific, disabled, ethnic minority and rainbow women. Women’s struggle for equality belongs to all of us. Our collective action and shared ownership for driving gender equality will make a positive difference for women all over Aotearoa. Let’s celebrate and empower all our women, raise awareness against inequalities and take action to bring about real change.”
  8. See: Upholding women’s rights at the United Nations – July 17, 2018 – By Jackie Blue, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner.
  10. Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission for the Seventh Periodic Review of New Zealand under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 11 June 2018
  11. New Zealand’s Third Universal Periodic Review 12 July 2018 Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission
  12. Women’s Rights in New Zealand – Submission of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission for the Seventh Periodic Review of New Zealand under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women – 11 June 2018
  15. Amending New Zealand’s Crimes Act 1961, to include all forms of Female Genital Mutilation – A background paper by Joanna Maskell, Senior Advisor NZ Human Rights Commission and Ayan Said, Advisor to the FGM Education Programme – Feb 2020 – para 6
  16. As Above – para 35
  17. PRISM: Human Rights issues relating to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in Aotearoa New Zealand – A report with recommendations – June 2020 – page 46
  18. Email dated Jan 2020 obtained by author – They say “Given the intersecting human rights involved and the absence of a clear position under international human rights law, the Commission is not able to commit to advocating for a prohibition against non-medical circumcision at the current time. However, ongoing discussion and consideration of the various rights and interests concerned is important for issues such as this that involve questions of bodily integrity and autonomy.”
  20. Criminal Justice in New Zealand – Julia Tolmie, Warren Brookbanks, 2007 p 302 – ISBN 0408718846, 9780408718844
  21. Does Gender Really Matter? Criminal Court Decision Making in New Zealand. Samantha Jeffries – New Zealand Sociology Volume 17 Number 1 2002
  22. Tess Patterson, et al(2019) Disparities in police proceedings and court sentencing for females versus males who commit sexual offences in New Zealand, Journal of Sexual Aggression
  24. Alexandre Flage, Ethnic and gender discrimination in the rental housing market: Evidence from a meta-analysis of correspondence tests, 2006–2017, Journal of Housing Economics, Volume 41, 2018,
  25. Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2020. Sixth report | Te Pūrongo tuaono: Men who use violence | Ngā tāne ka whakamahi i te whakarekereke Wellington: Health Quality & Safety Commission
  26. Human rights in New Zealand 2010 – pages 7,28,181,182,183,239,254, 278,300, 311,319
  27. See also – HRC PRISM report, submissions to the UN for CRC, CAT, UPR
  28. Social Rights Are Human Rights – Paul Hunt 2017
  30. Do people care if men don’t care about caring? The asymmetry in support for changing gender roles –
  33. Fortune, K. A. (2006). Double standards and perceptions of double standards in attitudes toward the roles of men and women (Unpublished Masters thesis dissertation). Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba.
  35. Tania Reynolds, Chuck Howard, Hallgeir Sjåstad, Luke Zhu, Tyler G. Okimoto, Roy F. Baumeister, Karl Aquino, JongHan Kim, – Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 161, 2020,
  36. Jeffries, Samantha. (2002). Does gender really matter? Criminal court decision making in New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology. 17.
  37. Stuijfzand S, De Wied M, Kempes M, Van de Graaff J, Branje S, Meeus W. Gender Differences in Empathic Sadness towards Persons of the Same- versus Other-sex during Adolescence. Sex Roles. 2016;75(9):434-446. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0649-3
  38. Follingstad DR, Dehart DD, Green EP. Psychologists’ judgments of psychologically aggressive actions when perpetrated by a husband versus a wife. Violence Vict. 2004 Aug;19(4):435-52. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.4.435.64165. PMID: 15726937.
  39. Brian Cesario, Attitudes about victims of workplace sexual harassment based on sex, Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, Volume 1, 2020, (
  41. Winegard, Bo & Clark, Cory & Hasty, Connor & Baumeister, Roy. (2018). Equalitarianism: A Source of Liberal Bias. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.3175680.
  42. von Hippel, William & Buss, David. (2017). Do Ideologically Driven Scientific Agendas Impede the Understanding and Acceptance of Evolutionary Principles in Social Psychology?. 10.4324/9781315112619-2.
  43. A fair go for all? Rite tahi tätou katoa? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services – A discussion paper by the Human Rights Commission – July 2012
  44. As above
  45. Why It’s OK to Speak Your Mind – Hrishikesh Joshi 2021 – ISBN 9780367141721
  46. Lisa Michelle Bates, Olena Hankivsky, Kristen W. Springer, Gender and health inequities: A comment on the Final Report of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 69, Issue 7, 2009, –
  47. The men’s health gap: men must be included in the global health equity agenda Peter Baker,a Shari L Dworkin,b Sengfah Tong,c Ian Banks,d Tim Shande & Gavin Yameyf
  50. “the index rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are outperforming men in particular indicators in some countries. Thus, a country that has higher enrolment for girls rather than boys in secondary school will score equal to a country where boys’ and girls’ enrolment is the same.”
  51. A fair go for all? Rite tahi tätou katoa? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services – A discussion paper by the Human Rights Commission – July 2012
  52. The United Nations Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty – Manfred Nowak 2019 – page 228
  53. Male Rape and Human Rights – Stemple 2009
  54. Bias against men’s issues within the United Nations and the World Health Organization: A content analysis – Nuzzo 2020
  55. Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Slovakia – CEDAW/C/SVK/CO/5-6
  56. Democratic backsliding and the backlash against women’s rights: Understanding the current challenges for feminist politics – UN Women discussion paper – 2020 –
  57. Flood, Michael & Dragiewicz, Molly & Pease, Bob. (2020). Resistance and backlash to gender equality. The Australian journal of social issues. 10.1002/ajs4.137.
  59. From Girls to Men: social attitudes to gender equality in Australia –50/50 by 2030 Foundation–
  60. A fair go for all? Rite tahi tätou katoa? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services – A discussion paper by the Human Rights Commission – July 2012
  61. As above
  62. Guidelines on Measures to Ensure Equality – HRC 2010
  64. A fair go for all? Rite tahi tätou katoa? Addressing Structural Discrimination in Public Services – A discussion paper by the Human Rights Commission – July 2012
  65. As above
  66. National Human Rights institutions – History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities –
  68. National Human Rights Institutions – History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities – United Nations 2010 page 36 “National human rights institutions have two levels of accountability, one to the State and one to the public.”