The (feminist) truth about Taj Mahal

You may well have heard of the ‘Taj Mahal’. Anyway google on that term now and you will find plenty of material to study. The wikipedia entry begins with:

“The Taj Mahal,  meaning “Crown of the Palace”, is an ivory-white marble mausoleum on the south bank of the Yamuna river in the Indian city of Agra. It was commissioned in 1632 by the Mughal emperorShah Jahan (reigned from 1628 to 1658), to house the tomb of his favourite wife, Mumtaz Mahal. The tomb is the centrepiece of a 17-hectare (42-acre) complex, which includes a mosque and a guest house, and is set in formal gardens bounded on three sides by a crenellated wall.”

The central theme of the story of the construction of the Taj Mahal is generally one of romance, combined with accounts of the massive technical and logistic task of building such a structure at that point in history.

But in terms of romance, this fable is most often said to be about a man utterly devoted to the memory of the woman he loved (pictured below). Sweet. But I knew that there had to be more to it than that. I need the truth. I had to find the feminist perspective. So back to google and this time I typed “taj mahal feminism” into the search field. 

My first stop was ‘Feminism and Taj Mahal – Nothing about love‘, snippets of which included:

“Unfortunately, this was not the only and will not be surely the last case of sub-human and maltreatment of a woman but glorified nation wide”

“As a nation, Indians choose to not only ignore but also glorified and connived in the perpetration of crime against woman.”

“In this case we do not care to challenge the stereotype of ‘love’ or ‘devoted good woman’ propaganda by eminent historians, scholars and fringe groups. Led by ‘biased and fixed’ and apparently immunized in favour of pervasive social malpractices, our political class also rave and rant it as a ‘love symbol’.”

And on and on it went. I knew it. Clearly this was a female experience that went way beyond oppression. One that had been sanitised by wave after wave of patriarchal running dogs (historians).

Next up was ‘The awfully unromantic Taj Mahal‘, snippets of which included:

“engaged to him when she was merely 14” … “To be the number one pick of a man’s harem, surely is not any woman’s idea of romance” … “was she only a detached vagina and womb, a sex toy to him, and not a real person whose body, health and welfare would register in his consciousness in any way?”

And we could read on as there’s plenty more tomes of wisdom such as these, but most likely by now the clouds of confusion have parted. That poor girl. That beastly man.

Well anyway, whether this be a fable of romance or something much more sinister, what’s the bet that a man never has, and never will, build a structure like the Taj Mahal for a feminist.

Should feminists wish to loudly cheer that proposition, then by all means they should go ahead and do so.

I pity them. And there’s a good chance that, sooner or later, that’s a feeling they’ll come to recognise.

Romance-tourism is just nothing like sex-tourism

In one of those rare idle moments I happened to google on ‘sex tourism eat pray love’ and this is one of the first articles that came up:

Rhonda and Ketut as the faces of female sex tourism, by Nigel Bowen (22 Jan 2013)

Yes, don’t be shocked but it’s been claimed that many women mix with local men whilst enjoying their holidays. But relax, because it’s so so different to that nasty sex-tourism thing that men do. I mean it’s not like the boys are prostitutes or anything, and it does seem fair that if they take time off work to show you around then a lady would buy them a meal or small gift. Or two.

Still those MRA scumbags rubbish anything that women value. So how have other feminists explained these very special holiday experiences?

When women pay men for sex, it doesn’t have the same social effect because there is no history of women enslaving men” (Source)

““female sex tourism” oversimplifies the motives of these women and that “romance tourism” explains the complex nature of what these women are engaging themselves in while involved in romance tours. They also explain that the expression “female sex tourism”, “serves to perpetuate gender roles and reinforce power relations of female subordination, romance tourism in Jamaica provides an arena for change” (Source)

“Once, sometimes twice, a month I meet up with Justin, a 36-year-old divorcé. We go out for a meal and maybe to a club before spending the night in a hotel … But what differentiates our dates from the norm is that I pay for Justin’s company, including having sex with him” (Source)

‘They want to be stimulated throughout the body’: Bali Gigolos share their secrets (7 May 2017)

Racketeering Refugees: What the Million Marching Pussyhatters Really Want? (28 January 2017)

Female seks tourism (26 November 2016)

Confessions of an Australian male escort: ‘I don’t just get booked for sex’ (9 September 2016)

Lonely Women Paying For Men’s Company (12 August 2016) Video

‘European Sugar Mamas’ – Women sex tourists in Kenya (29 July 2016) Reddit discussion thread

The women who hire male escorts (1 February  2014)

Wealthy Older Women Are Hiring Men In Kenya To Romance Them (22 October 2014)

http://travel.ninemsn.com.au/holidaytype/weird/7942963/cougar-prowl-female-sex-tourism-hotspots

http://www.rachelrabbitwhite.com/women-who-buy-sex-the-secret-life-of-jane/

http://harlotsparlour.com/2010/08/23/women-do-buy-sex/

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/why-do-women-pay-for-sex-20131209-2z11k.html

Major sporting events & domestic violence myth

Feminists claim a bogus strong link between televised football and/or major sports events such as the U.S Superbowl to sudden surges in the incidence of domestic violence.

By way of background this topic was formally addressed in another of my blog posts entitled ‘Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative‘.

Given however that the media repeats the same theme in various western countries on a fairly regular basis, I have decided that it merits its own post here. But don’t take my word for it, just try word-searching on google, twitter, etc, using terms like ‘World Cup domestic violence’ or ‘Super Bowl domestic violence’ to find examples such as those listed below.

To start the ball rolling begin by reading ‘The World Cup Abuse Nightmare‘, by Christina Hoff Sommers (10 July 2010)

Australian variants of the same hoax include this 2014 article and one about the NSW State of Origin (2018)

Here’s a couple of recent (2018) World Cup articles (example 1 / example 2)

Searches related to domestic violence spiked during both World Cup semi-finals (14 July 2018)

The Two Englands (12 July 2018)

Manager of Newtown pub fired for ‘joking’ about violence against women (19 July 2018)

(I will progessively add to this list of papers as & when I get time)

No new posts for many months – why?

Greetings and thanks to followers and/or supporters of this blog. Some of you might have noticed the lack of new posts for the past six or more months, and wondered if I had grown disinterested in the issues addressed herein …

Well, let’s flash back to December 2017. Imagine yours truly and family sitting in a Ford Mustang convertible parked on the side of the road in California. Though it was winter we had the top down and had pulled over to put some more warm clothing on.

Sounds pretty cool huh?

Well yeah, but then an unlicensed/uninsured drunk slammed their car into the back of ours whilst they were barrelling along at highway speed. Both cars were write-offs. I have no memory of this, nor of the couple of weeks of my life. The next thing I was aware of was sitting up in bed in what I thought was a bizarre looking motel room (who chose this place anyway?)

This was in fact the second hospital I had been admitted to by that stage. I learnt that I had been talking for a few days. I wish someone had taped that stuff … it could have been the meaning of life or something very insightful (joking). I was also told that I had been helped/taught to do everything beyond simply breathing. It was like someone had pushed a reset button on a laptop, and I was coming back online.

This unfortunate change of plans meant goodbye to our plans for a special Christmas dinner in Vancouver. And a whole lot more.

Anyway everyone survived, and luckily I was the only member of our family to receive more than cuts and bruises. So it would seem that god kept me alive to continue this blog. Either that or I was just lucky. But that doesn’t sound as profound so I’ll go with the former.

So my head’s been kind of fuzzy and I forgot all my passwords, and you could say that we’ve been rather tied up with medical, insurance and legal matters (unbelievably, only just winding up in August).

And updating this blog was one of the things that suffered.

OK, so what’s to learn from this episode?

    1. Holidays can go from dreamy to nasty very quickly, so enjoy them while you can
    2. Purchase travel insurance from a reliable provider, and provide your partner with details at the start of your holiday, as it’s too late once you’re unconscious
    3. Don’t anticipate getting compensated quickly, don’t expect the process to be easy, and don’t expect to cover all your costs. Our travel insurance claim took over five months to resolve (and was surprisingly time-consuming) and the court case took about seven months.

California has a Victims of Crime compensation process but it won’t address loss of personal property (and in our case for example, the rental car we were driving, and which was destroyed, was considered personal property). Even if the judge orders “restitution” as part of the sentencing process, as happened in our case, unfortunately there is no guarantee you will receive anything anytime soon.

Apart from my family not being seriously injured, the only other good news was that the attitude of police/first responders and staff of the relevant District Attorney’s office was consistently respectful, helpful and positive.

Drive safely folks.

 

Queensland LNP offers up failed measures to address domestic violence

In another post I described the feminist-driven non-event that is the Queensland Government’s approach to tackling domestic violence.

Now with an election just weeks away we have seen domestic violence policies released firstly by One Nation and then yesterday by the Liberal National Party.

The Liberal National Party has offered up nothing new or different, proposing:

  • A public register to “disclose people’s abusive pasts”
  • Setting up specialist domestic violence courts
  • Creating a specific domestic violence offence “to better protect victims”, and
  • A law change to prohibit perpetrators from personally cross examining their victims in civil or criminal matters

The only box they didn’t tick was a new awareness campaign.

Yes, the first dot point is based on Clare’s Law in the UK – which has been found to be costly and ineffective. The Queensland Government recently came to the same conclusion.

Special domestic violence courts were trialed in Western Australia and then discontinued as they were found to be costly and ineffective.

A new offence. Yes, that’s going to make a big difference. Like the new offence recently proposed for strangulation. We don’t already have enough suitable offences in our legal armory? Oh please! But it sounds effective, right? This particular proposal is discussed in this article.

And who needs to confront their accusers in a court of law? An obviously over-rated legal anachronism.

The LNP could have chosen to offer a real alternative to the policies of the Labor Party. Something bold that went ‘back to the drawing board’, challenging the entire feminist/Duluth model mindset. Something that would reap tangible results in terms of reducing domestic violence, in contrast to the ineffective feeding trough for feminist organisations that the taxpayers are currently supporting.

Instead the LNP have opted for the safe path and offered Queensland voter’s nothing of value or substance, and we are all the poorer for it.

See also:

Sunshine Coast Labor and LNP candidates in radio interview re: domestic violence (21 November 2017) Disappointing yet very predictable comments.

Courier-Mail coverage of the policy release (9 November 2017)

One Nation unveils controversial domestic violence policy (24 October 2017) Strongly criticized by LNP

One possible alternative to pre-nuptial agreements

Today the Australian media reported on a High Court case involving a pre-nuptial agreement (‘pre-nup’) between a wealthy property developer and his younger bride, who he met via a “web site for potential brides”:

High Court tears up prenuptial agreement between property developer and online bride‘ (8 November 2017)

Pre-nuptial agreements have never been a magic bullet to prevent financial exploitation where one spouse (usually the man) takes far more assets into a marriage than the other. It has always been a case of it being better to have a pre-nup than nothing at all, in order to reduce the likelihood of subsequent divorce-rape.

In Australia, and elsewhere, even competently and ethically prepared pre-nups are subject to legal challenge. In the case cited above, the nature of the agreement was found to constitute ‘unconscionable conduct’. This was said to be on the basis of both a demand that the agreement be signed or the marriage would not go ahead, and with respect of the terms of the financial settlement set out in the agreement.

One alternative that might be considered would involve relatively minor changes to relevant Australian law. What is proposed here is by no means a complete fix, but it would represent at least a step in the right direction.

In Thailand, as in various other countries, the law differentiates between assets accumulated prior to marriage, and assets accumulated during the marriage:

Sin Somros is/are the marital assets or property of the marriage jointly owned by husband and wife, in general all properties acquired after the marriage (except those listed in section 1471 under 3) (Source)

Sin suan tua is property which is exclusively owned by only one of the spouses. The owner of the sin suan tua property is free to dispose of it without having to account to the other spouse. Under the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), property comprising the sin suan tua of a spouse consists of: (i) property belonging to the spouse before marriage; (ii) property for personal use, dress or ornaments suitable for the spouse’s station in life, or tools necessary for carrying on the profession of the spouse; (iii) property acquired by the spouse during marriage through a will or gift if that property was intended to be sin suan tua; and (iv) the khongman (a betrothal gift). (Source)

Thai law also allows for couples to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement, the details of which are as set out here.

The reality is that the current divorce laws in western countries favour the interests of women and were written at a time when society was a very different place, for example pre-advent of no-fault divorce and at a time when most women were house-wives.

Read this other blog post to see what happens in a situation where the husband still typically brings far more assets into the marriage than the wife (indeed the wife is more likely to be in debt at the time of marriage), where most divorces are initiated by women, and where the court system is dominated by white knights and older gents guided more by chivalry than a genuine commitment to justice.

A situation where pre-marriage assets are quarantined from seizure seems to be eminently fairer to me, but which politician/s in Australia would publicly support it? Sadly, very few or none at the present time – and certainly no-one in the ranks of the major parties.

Failure to consider and introduce legal reforms such as this will only accelerate the trend of men avoiding marriage and de-facto relationships, and the deleterious social impacts arising from that.

It will be interesting to see if a positive outcome of same-sex marriage in Australia will be greater enthusiasm for law reform related to the distribution of assets in the event of divorce. When straight men are the only ones impacted then such reform is anything but urgent (think, ‘glacial’). Indeed we have already seen heightened interest in the reform of laws related to alimony and spousal support brought on by the increasing numbers of cases involving divorces involving female spouses as primary bread-winners.

See also:

How advice at the hairdresser’s to a millionaire’s ex might have changed prenups in Australia forever (10 November 2017)

When men have a daughter (another tale of male-blaming and silencing)

At the time of writing the Weinstein affair remains an ongoing and evolving media phenomenon. The hypocrisy of this one does my head in.

Imagine … All men being demonised for being the same gender as the alleged perpetrator at the centre of a major scandal. Men offer comments supportive of female victims of sexual harassment, and condemnatory of male perpetrators, but are dismissed or even shamed for doing so. Meanwhile other men are shamed for not commenting.

Men subseqently re-frame/qualify their thoughts/feelings in the light of well-publicised research – research that proposes that men understand and empathise with women better when they have sisters, wives and daughters. Men are then shamed on the basis that their amended and qualified message of support doesn’t treat women as humans.

Men, the beasts that they are, just can’t seem to say or do the right thing.

Women are a different kettle of fish. It goes without saying that nowhere, nowhere are they responsible. For anything. Not for being victims or alleged victims. Not for helping Harvey trick/lure women into private meetings in hotel rooms (their excuse). Not for willingly following the casting-couch route to financial rewards. Not for remaining silent when they knew what was going on, in many cases accepting payment for doing so. And absolutely not, for they themselves harassing others.

Note that I have addressed the topic of harassment in the workplace in another blog post. This current post is more about feminist shaming, bitterness and hypocrisy set against the backdrop of the media furore surrounding Harvey Weinstein’s real and alleged misbehaviour.

Feminists have long been telling men – even feminist men – that they have no legitimate right to talk about feminism, or about specific topics that they (feminists) consider to be women’s issues. They typically assert that men have no understanding of women’s lived experience, and have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Here’s a recent Australian example.

As a consequence men are most reluctant to offer up public comment on such matters. This situation is addressed in the following blog posts:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
Karen Straughan and others on feminist shaming tactics

The media informs us however that men move one rung up the ladder when they have wives and/or daughters. See for yourself – just do a google search using terms such as “when men have a daughter” or “men change after having daughter”. Year in and year out, article after article based on this assertion:

Why the best words a dad can hear are… It’s a girl! (7 June 2017)
Men Really Do Get Less Sexist When They Have Daughters (3 June 2017)

This is the backdrop to the emergence of the Weinstein affair. Or at least the October 2017 version thereof. Because, as we are finding out more each day, plenty of people were ‘in the know’ before now.

The first development after the publication of the initial allegations was men being blamed for not speaking out against Harvey Weinstein. See for example:

Hollywood men silent over Weinstein allegations as women speak out (11 October 2017), with a later contribution being … Men who are silent after #MeToo: it’s time to speak up (20 October 2017)

Sure enough, after being given what they assumed to be the media’s ‘green light’ to enter the debate, more men spoke out to condemn Weinstein and/or to condemn the problem of sexual harassment generally.

Thus the next wave of outrage was in relation to men speaking out against Weinstein, especially those mentioning that they were motivated to do so, in part, because they had wives/daughters. Some examples of the media coverage include:

You don’t need to be a father to stand up to abusers. You need to believe women (13 October 2017)

Some questions for the “Fathers of daughters” condemning Harvey Weinstein (13 October 2017)

Men don’t need to have daughters to be concerned about women (13 October 2017)

People Are Dragging Men Who Say They Care About Rape Culture Because They Have A Daughter (12 October 2017)

Does any reasonable person seriously believe that men referencing the girls/women in their lives meant women any disrepect? Think of any other instance where this ‘logic’ has been proposed, because I can’t. I can think, for example of discussions regarding childhood disability or illness whereby parents comment along the lines of “as a parent of a child with autism …“. Were those parents insinuating that their autistic kids were less than human?

Then there was the push-back against the push-back. Men are mostly guilty and should do more to stop themselves and their brothers, including but not limited to public self-flagellation:

Dear Men: It’s you, too (19 October 2017) by Roxane Gay & attracting 1,397 readers comments

How men can help after Weinstein and #MeToo (22 October 2017)

“After the flood of #MeToo posts, critics charged that the hashtag continues to put the onus on victims to speak up while letting men off the hook. In response, some have shared lists of tips on how men can stop this behaviour from flourishing.”

And to remove any doubt about who’s wearing the pants in this debate, the usual feminist voices pressed long and hard on the ‘all men are responsible’ button:

It’s not the job of “Hollywood women” to ‘fix’ sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

The men who kept Harvey Weinstein’s secrets safe are all around us (11 October 2017)

Harvey Weinstein Scandal: Men In Hollywood Staying Silent? | The View (10 October 2017) Video. Reddit discussion thread here

Oh, and for any other men who dared offer an opinion, because “… some people – and more particularly, men – seem to think that it’s not the feelings of the alleged victims that matter. No, it’s actually their feelings that are important.”

Men of Hollywood – don’t make this Harvey Weinstein situation about you (13 October 2017)

‘Cancel the Christmas party’: 2017’s the year of the ‘confused’ man (16 November 2017) Rather than working with men to resolve confusion about what constitutes appropriate behaviour, feminist journo prefers to mock for what she sees as a weak ‘excuse’. Anything but helpful.

As is usually the case, any rebuttal was muted and provided by male-positive writers like Martin Daubney and Kathy Gyngell:

This #MeToo witch-hunt will destroy women’s happiness (23 October 2017)

Weinstein’s actions are revolting – but don’t tell me all men are to blame (11 October 2017)

So male voices were silenced again and the debate wrested back into the hands of feminists/liberals satisfying their ongoing imperative to control the narrative. But things didn’t entirely go their way, as derailments followed (and continue to this day), namely:

Articles highlighting the hypocrisy of the Hollywood democrat/leftist elite in turning the backs for so long, and regarding Harvey Weinstein as an archtypical nice guy & supporter of feminism, for example:

“Weinstein, the reports noted, had been a prominent donor to causes that address gender inequality, especially in the entertainment industry” (Source)

Harvey Weinstein and Feminism (19 October 2017)

Watch When Barbara Walters and The View Coverup For Harvey Weinstein Types (15 October 2017)

Jane Fonda: I knew about Weinstein, and I’m ‘ashamed’ I didn’t say anything (12 October 2017)

Ah but of course the feminist lobby will never admit weakness or fault, so their strategy here is to double-down on their ongoing ‘feminist men aren’t feminists’ offensive (example, with more in the opening section of this blog post).

Articles highlighting the elements of dog-piling, misandry, vengeance and hysteria that is occurring, for example:

#MeToo: A moral panic about men (18 October 2017)

Male Victim Erasure and Backlash in #MeToo Campaign (17 October 2017)

The hysteria in the Harvey Weinstein scandal (12 October 2017)

Finally, I note that mention has yet to be made of sexual harassment perpetrated by influential women. There has, however, been some limited and peripheral acknowledgement of the harassment of men/boys by men:

Corey Feldman celebrates ‘turning of the tide’ on Hollywood sex abuse (17 October 2017)

Hollywood’s Other ‘Open Secret’ Besides Harvey Weinstein: Preying on Young Boys (16 October 2017)

Weinstein saga leads James Van Der Beek to share personal story of sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

Actor Terry Crews recalls being sexually assaulted by Hollywood exec (11 October 2017)

In closing, Cathy Young has written an excellent article that touches on a number of the issues mentioned above.

See also:

Paul Elam’s take on this topic from a Red Pill perspective
This piece by Gideon Scopes entitled ‘Rethinking Gender, Sexuality and Violence’, This article by D.C MacAllister in the The Federalist

Women in politics fear #MeToo moment will backfire — and they’ll be the ones punished (12 December 2017)

A panic is not an answer: We’re at imminent risk of turning this #metoo moment into a frenzied rush to blame all men (26 November 2017) by Christina Hoff Summers

Kathy Gyngell: The silence of the males (13 November 2017)

Knee-touching MPs? I took advantage of men to get ahead at Westminster: By Spectator columnist MELISSA KITE, who admits flirting shamelessly to get scoops (14 November 2017)

The #MeToo sexual harassment hysteria is a pretext for women to take power and money from men (21 December 2017)

Other posts in this blog related to this topic include:

Don’t look at me! No wait. Look at me!
Girls showing their bits = empowerment? patriarchal exploitation? self-indulgence? other?
#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
On Gender Traitors, White Knights and Manginaso

On housework and ’emotional labour’

You may have noticed articles appearing on the above topics with increasing regularity. Almost without exception the theme is one of men as unappreciative, lazy, selfish, oafs. We are told that women who are in heterosexual relationships are routinely forced to pick up the slack, and are consequently unhappy and disadvantaged.

Until now I collated articles on this theme in (mostly) the following blog posts:

The ‘Marriage Strike’ and MGTOW
Men & women and their attitudes to marriage and parenthood

From this point forward, however, I will consolidate all such articles in this new post, and progressively add my own commentary.

Related references:

Sharing the parenting duties could be key to marital bliss: study (3 October 2017)

Most of the articles on this theme don’t acknowledge that men are, on average, doing more around the house than they have ever done before. This article bucks the trend:

“Although men have increased their housework time since the 1970s, they more typically perform the least-urgent chores, like changing lightbulbs or car maintenance”. Err, thanks for the bouquet

Gender equality begins at home: empty the dishwasher, guys, by Judith Ireland (1 May 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread. And here is a February 2017 article on the same theme.

At home, women treat men as if they are barely competent (10 February 2015)

The two articles below argue a case that’s somewhat different to the usual feminist assertions:

Men Who Do More Housework Have Less Sex (1 April 2013)

The More Chores A Husband Does, The More Likely The Marriage Will End In Divorce (28 September 2012)

On taxation and the ‘Female Economy’

It would appear that women are, on average, the net beneficiaries of the tax system in most western countries – and by a large margin.

Firstly the contribution to the government’s tax revenue paid by women is dwarfed by that amount contributed by men. This is a reflection, in part, of the gender pay (earnings) gap that feminists are forever banging on about. And for the uninitiated, that gap primarily reflects personal choices rather than active gender discrimination by employers.

Secondly, of that government expenditure that can be seen to benefit one gender over the other, women/girls do very well indeed in comparison to government allocations to men/boys.

The discrepancy between the amount of tax revenue contributed by men in Australia, and the extent to which the government invests in agencies/programs supporting men & boys is addressed in another blog post.

This is the result of, and is reflected in, the level of utter difference or even contempt demonstrated by most politicians towards men and their issues.

I anticipate readers asking ‘well, ok then, point me to definitive statistics to support your assertion’. But, alas, that’s not as easy as it should be. Some statistics for other countries are referenced in the articles below, but in Australia one would have to compile such statistics from scratch. This would constitute an onerous task for anyone as I state in a post mentioned earlier. This data gap is no accident, for most politicians and bureaucrats either don’t care or would prefer such information to not be made available.

The same situation applies in relation to exploring the gender divide for many other issues. If you seek data that supports a position of male culpability or female disadvantage, information abounds. With regards to examining alternative perspectives, however, the reverse applies. It was once a case of the relevant information being available but well-hidden. Now, more and more, researchers simply elect not to ask the relevant questions.

One indicator of the gender expenditure gap however is the large number of government and non-government organisations formulating policy and/or providing services to women and girls (in contrast to few/none for men/boys). See also these two posts in relation to funding for feminist advocacy groups (post #1 / post #2). The gender expenditure gap is now even reflected in Australia’s allocation towards foreign aid.

And yet despite this gender tax/support gap, this feminist scholar is probably not alone in proposing that women shouldn’t be taxed at all.

A selection of related articles/papers:

The relationship between taxation and the Gender Pay Gap (17 November 2017)

India considers introducing a lower rate of tax for single women – and many other financial benefits (7 May 2017)

Jordan Holbrook: Men pay £75 billion more tax than women every year (28 March 2017)

2014/15 – the income tax gender gap increased again… to £75.5 BILLION (24 March 2017) UK

Men use retirement money 3x less but pay the same retirement taxes (5 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread

 “The Lifetime Distribution of Health Care Costs” B. Alemayehu and KE Warner. Health Serv. Res. (2004) A March 2017 Reddit discussion thread and linked paper

Will You Pay The Bill For The Coming Spinster Bubble? (10 January 2017)

“Income and fiscal incidence by age and gender: some evidence from New Zealand” O. Aziz, N. Gemmell, and A. Laws, Review of Income and Wealth (2015) A November 2016 Reddit discussion thread and linked paper

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video

Reblog: Research find that as a group, only men pay tax (16 August 2016)

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (10 August 2016)

2012/13 – the income tax gender gap increased AGAIN… to £69,000,000,000 (20 June 2015)

The ‘Pole Tax’ on men is why I’m not voting tomorrow (6 May 2015) U.K

The ‘benefits gap’ — a cursory analysis of US social security (OASI) and disability insurance (DI) An October 2014 Reddit discussion thread with links to relevant Social Security Administration data sources

Women’s share of income tax payments declines (2011/12 v 2010/11) (20 August 2014)

British men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, women only 28%. So why does the state relentlessly assault men and boys, whilst advantaging women and girls? (1 April 2014)

Are women paying 60% less income tax than men? (8 February 2013)

The Female Economy

Feminists rage about the desperate personal privations that women suffer a result of the gender wage gap, whilst demanding all manner of financial support). At the same time, however, others gloat (without a hint of irony) about the financial strength of women collectively. Go figure.

The female economy: Untapped market worth $28 trillion (29 November 2017)

Women in the Economy II – How Implementing a Women’s Economic Empowerment Agenda Can Shape the Global Economy (2017) A report by Citi

The next economic boom could come from women (12 September 2017)

Men or Women: Who Has the Most Buying Power and Why? (13 March 2014)

Marketing to Women: Surprising Stats Show Purchasing Power & Influence (27 July 2012)

The Female Economy (September 2009) and She-conomy (April 2010)

Women want more: How to capture your share of the world’s largest, fastest growing market (September 2009)

 

The sham that is the Australian ‘Same Sex Marriage’ vote

The federal Marriage Act Sect 46(1) always required celebrants to provide a definition of marriage as part of the ceremony. The wording required is “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life“, or “words to that effect” (Source)

The percentage of the Australian population who self-identify as gay or lesbian is uncertain, but is probably in the range of 4-6%.

This month Australians were given the opportunity to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage (‘SSM’) in Australia via a postal survey. The postal survey asked a single question that question could only be answered with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’. The question was “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”.

I voted ‘no’, and no, it’s not because I am hateful or homophobic. Does that make me a hypocrite or a liar? No it doesn’t, and I think it’s simplistic to the point of childishness for anyone to suggest otherwise.

My primary concern is in relation to the process, including the troubling precedent it sets for future political and legal ‘reform’. As the campaign has unfolded I have also become deeply concerned about the behaviour of the media and elements of the ‘Yes’ bloc. On this latter note, see for example this article by Miranda Devine about assaults at Sydney University, the assault on Tony Abbott MP, and the young employee sacked for holding views that differed from those of her employer.

The linked video clips show separate incidents where ‘yes’ voters aggressively harangue people holding ‘It’s OK to vote no’ signs (example 1/example 2/ example 3). Just as with Trump/Clinton supporters in USA, it’s not the conservatives (typically labelled ‘far right’) who are behaving aggressively.

And now we’re told that ‘no’ voters can’t help it because they’re too stupid.

Some readers will be asking “How is this a men’s issue?“. No doubt there are gay men who would appreciate having the option to marry in preference to the alternatives already available to them. I mean them no disrespect. I was motivated to write this post mainly due to the parallels with how the broader gender debate is playing out, recognising this to be a major obstacle to achieving recognition of men’s issues and true gender equality.

The SSM postal vote is far from being a worthy model of the way to create legislation or govern the country. Our politicians must be told this in very clear and unambiguous terms.

At an estimated cost of $122 million it is also an incredibly wasteful exercise. The propensity of our state and federal government to convene Royal Commissions or Inquiries in order to delay or avoid making difficult decisions is a long-standing embarrassment, but compared to the SSM vote they are a bargain.

Further, the SSM vote is almost certain to be ineffective, not least because either the government and/or the ‘yes’ lobby or ‘no’ lobby will not accept the result. In particular, you can bet your bottom dollar that if the ‘no’ vote gets up on the day, then we are set to witness a replay of the Hillary Clinton loss all over again.

As others have already suggested, the process might have had some shred of validity if the government had circulated draft legislation, together with a summary of arguments for and against specific proposed changes. According to Peter Dutton MP and Treasurer Scott Morrison this was a decision of Cabinet.

A draft bill was prepared some time ago, but I understand that no commitment has been made that this version will be put up for parliamentary vote should the ‘yes’ vote prevail.

The voting paper asks “Should the law be changed …?” What will an answer to a question this vague tell our politicians that they could not judge for themselves in the context of a parliamentary vote?

So exactly how will the primary enabling legislation (the Marriage Act) be changed? What other legislation and regulations will subsequently need to be amended, and in what manner? What will be the likely tangible flow-on effect of these changes for ordinary Australians, for example in terms of financial costs/benefits?

If this were about a major infrastructure project then all relevant facts (or at least, estimates) would be set out for objective consideration. Instead the scope of discussion in relation to same-sex marriage has been, for the most part, remarkably narrow. Alternately tugging on heart strings/shaming those with alternative views, or dishing out some bible quotes, does not constitute an intelligent political debate.

Why so little discussion, for example, of what has happened in those countries that have approved SSM? (see here for discussion of the UK example, with related comments by Rowan Dean here)

Along with an abundance of predictable and sometimes shrill PC frou-frou, a few thoughtful pieces have appeared in the media. One example is Liberals find scant refuge in a surrender to identity politics by Greg Sheridan.

“The destructiveness of identity politics is that it poisons relations between human beings by claiming that historic injustices require civic inequalities to remedy them today. This requires that some groups be classified as victims and others as villains”

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey

Parliament of Australia briefing paper on Same Sex Marriage (undated)

Howard rejects PM’s vow on religious freedom (29 September 2017) A copy of John Howard’s full page newspaper advert is provided below

The failure of ‘Yes’ to control its militant wing (27 September 2017)

Same sex marriage in Australia – why I have to vote ‘No’ (26 September 2017) Video

The definitive guide to the gay marriage debate (21 September 2017)

“Because part of this strategy is to provoke an equally irrational response from the Yes campaign”. Joe, wake up to yourself mate! No-one is manipulating the ‘Yes’ bloc into performing their special brand of craziness. No-one needs to – it’s what people in this sociopolitical milieu do now. And not just with this issue, but many others. For a recent Australian example just look at my post regarding the ‘Red Pill’ movie.

Same-sex marriage: Yes, but spare the virtue-signalling (19 September 2017)

‘It’s not okay to be homophobic’: Canberra contractor sacked for ‘vote no’ Facebook post (19 September 2017) What is happening to our country when people feel justified in jettisoning our open and democratic way of life in their quest to virtue-signal and shame.

Gay audience member shuts down MP’s argument against same-sex marriage (19 September 2017)

On the issue of conflating the right to marry with other issues, which Mr Lau had also raised, Ms Wong said conflating issues was a tactic of the “No” campaign. “The ‘No’ campaign is finding every other issue to talk about,” she said. “It’s a deliberate scare campaign, and I think it’s a tactic Australians are seeing through. And it’s a disappointing tactic.”

Leftists/feminists have no problem with conflating issues when it suits – the most common being the feminists=women furphy. In this case what Penny is really railing against is that other related issues might be considered, issues outside of the narrow parameters for debate approved by people such as herself.

Sure some of these factors will be over-reach or downright wrong. Most however will be legitimate and deserving of serious consideration in reaching an informed decision on this particular matter. And the many others that will follow.