Supporting male victims of crimes considered violence against women and girls

I first heard about this UK Home Office ‘initiative’ via a Tweet this morning (31 March 2022). Merely the title alone is an outrageous affront to men and boys. They should remove the ridiculous gendered approach to crime and justice, not double-down and build on it. I find it hard to believe that even a marginally competent senior bureaucrats allowed it to slip through.

Here is a link to the relevant policy paper.

The Home Office advised us that “This document updates and replaces the first Male Victims Position Statement, published in 2019, and reiterates the government’s commitment to ensuring that male victims of crimes which disproportionately affect women and girls are supported.

It draws on responses to the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Call for Evidence, relevant data, and a comprehensive literature review.

It complements the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy and Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan, which apply to all victims of these crimes.”

As I said, it’s an affront and when I find the time, energy and patience to respond in a thoughtful manner, then I will do so.

Teaching sexual consent – Responsible men and vulnerable women

by Bettina Arndt (25 March 2022)
Sydney schoolgirl, Chanel Contos

Last month it was announced all Australian high school students are to be taught about sexual consent and coercion. Mandatory education programs are being rolled out across the country teaching boys not to rape.  

It’s mainly due to Sydney schoolgirl Chanel Contos (pictured above), who burst into the limelight last year when she announced that a school sex education course had led her to discover she’d been raped two years earlier. As a 13-year-old she’d been “forced” to go down on a boy at a party but it took a Year-10 school sex education course for her to realize what had happened to her. She started a website encouraging other girls to tell stories of similar sexual assaults and nearly 2000 obliged. Ever since she’s been out there calling out male misbehaviour and lobbying for school sexual consent courses.

This is just the latest front in the mighty feminist battle to rein in male sexuality and punish more rapists. I wrote recently about how the NSW parliament was misled by false statistics which were used to assist the smooth passage of enthusiastic consent regulations into law. At much the same time over 1500 school kids were signing a Contos petition calling for enthusiastic consent to be taught in schools.

Our compliant media dutifully pushed the fearmongering as Contos met with members of parliament and other power brokers to make it all happen. We heard shocking stories of drunk girls waking up to discover males taking advantage of them, boys behaving badly, circulating photos of their mates having sex, etc – some truly unacceptable male behaviour.

But gradually questions started appearing in online comments about why so many girls were finding themselves in these risky situations, why were so many vulnerable youngsters attending these alcohol and drug fueled parties? Naturally any suggestion that girls needed to take care of themselves were howled down. A principal of a Sydney girls school dared to suggest that along with more sex education in schools, parents need to be “having conversations regarding consent, the impact of alcohol, risk-taking behaviours and self-respect.” Her sensible suggestion was treated with disdain by journalists who lined up enlightened souls to put her straight. The problem is “not about girls” pronounced an executive from the Alliance of Girls’ Schools, but rather about the “underbelly of disrespect, privilege and callousness displayed by young men towards young women.”

“This is a systemic, centuries-old societal problem,” she explained. “Behaviour that endorses male sexual entitlement, lack of accountability and a power imbalance.”  

That’s it, you see. Feminism 101, all designed to tie in nicely with the “respect for women” ideological claptrap already rolled out in the “Respectful Relationships” programs allegedly tackling domestic violence, which are currently indoctrinating children in schools – teaching them about toxic males and helpless females.

Now sexual consent education will reinforce that message. I’ve just been sent snapshots taken from the brand-new curriculum being introduced in one South Australian school. Apparently, there’s flexibility in how the educators choose to address the topic but it seems most schools will take a similar approach.

It’s fascinating seeing how the educators twist themselves into knots to avoid any hint of victim blaming.  They’ve come up with a new slogan: “Vulnerability is not the same as responsibility.” Look at this little scenario featuring Kim.  Be warned, it’s pretty confusing because we aren’t given the gender of Kim, who uses the pronoun “they.”

Kim is out drinking, and a man “they” knows offers “them” a ride home but instead drives to a secluded spot, parks and wants to have sex. Our educators spell out the message very clearly: it’s the villain, the driver, who is 100% responsible for his actions and whether or not Kim is safe. Kim is simply “vulnerable” as a result of decisions “they” have made to get into this situation.

Neat, eh? In this particular scenario we don’t know the gender of the potential victim, but the bulk of the responsibility/vulnerability examples given in the curriculum involve males taking advantage of girls who arguably signal sexual interest in various ways by wearing low-cut dresses or inviting a boy to “snuggle” with them in a private room at a party. Here’s a classic example, featuring Jen and Luke. Note that it is taken from an American publication called “Men Stopping Rape” – which says it all….

The predominantly female teachers who will be guiding the students’ discussion of these scenes will no doubt work hard to convince the kids that the boy is inevitably 100% responsible while the innocent girl is simply vulnerable.

Very occasionally they do present a girl as the baddie. Like the sexually aggressive Mila who is all over her boyfriend Luke and gets very indignant when he says he wants to take his time. “I said it was time to be a real man and do the deed,” responds Mila. A rare toxic woman but overwhelmed by large numbers of pushy blokes who don’t take no for an answer, have sex with sleeping girls and boast about having sex to their mates.

The curriculum does include one scenario, Ali and Josh, describing the situation of a girl who has sex because she fears her boyfriend might dump her if she doesn’t. That’s true to life… a very good example of a girl giving consent she may later regret. The great pity is there is so little in this curriculum about the many reasons girls might be ambivalent about consent. The central myth of the “enthusiastic consent” dogma is the notion that girls/women know their own minds and clearly indicate their desires. The truth is males are forced to interpret the muddy waters of female sexual ambivalence, obfuscation, and confusion. The apparent “Yeses’’ that are really “Maybes’’ or secret “Nos’’.

This week I had a live chat on thinkspot with a famous YouTuber, Steve Bonnell – also known as “Destiny.” I hope you enjoy our interesting conversation and will “like” the video and share it.

Bonnell has made big bucks as a video game “twitch streamer” but this clever, articulate young man is also a political commentator, debating all manner of issues usually from a leftist perspective. Funnily enough, just after our conversation Bonnell was banned from Twitch for “hateful conduct” which might just have included our chat about sexual consent, which certainly would have got up the nose of the woke folk running social media.

Bonnell regularly challenges the new dogma on this issue, throwing down the gauntlet by declaring that women no longer have bad sexual experiences – if was bad, it was rape and the man’s fault. His argument is that men are being forced into a parental role – treating women like infants with no agency of their own. Bonnell also declares that if you invite someone to your house, you must expect them to see that as a sexual invitation. And that when it comes to stealthing, women shouldn’t have sex with anyone whom they wouldn’t be comfortable telling not to remove a condom.

Naturally I agreed with him on these points, but amusingly Bonnell was very careful not to align too strongly with what he sees as my overly protective pro-male stance. I was intrigued to hear him talk about young women today, whom he claims enter every sexual encounter with some element of fear. As I pointed out, I’ve never felt like that and see this as a total failure of modern feminism. Whatever happened to feminism’s celebration of women’s female strength and independence? Remember Helen Reddy’s triumphant song – I am woman, hear me roar?

Many of you will know Camille Paglia’s famous story about being in college in the 1960s when girls were still chaperoned and locked safely away from boys at night. She describes their fight to rid themselves of this protectionism, the fight for the freedom to risk rape. “I think it is discouraging to see the surrender of young women of their personal autonomy,” she says, amazed that women are welcoming “the intrusion and surveillance of authority figures over their private lives.”

That’s the bottom line here. The sexual consent courses being introduced in our schools are simply the latest effort to convince young women that they are all potential victims, needing protection from dangerous males. Another step to creating a divided society.

Meanwhile another campus fizzer

Five years ago, I wrote about the huge let down for feminists when they persuaded the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct a million-dollar survey to prove there was a rape crisis on campus. All they found was a lot of unwanted staring and tiny rates of sexual assault. Not that we heard the good news from mainstream media which beat up a new narrative about widespread campus “sexual violence” which activists used to bully universities into setting up the kangaroo courts, implementing sexual consent courses and the like.

Now they’ve tried again, and the results are even worse for them. The latest survey published this week was even more of a dud, with sexual harassment rates less than a third of those reported in 2015-16 (8% compared to 26%), and minimal rates of assault (1.1% for the year surveyed compared to the earlier figure of 0.8 %).

What a joke, given that they’d done everything they could to expand the definitions of sexual misconduct, as I explained in this blog last year. The latest survey included as harassment such items as staring, making comments about your private life or physical appearance, and repeated requests to go on a date.

Enthusiastic consent featured in defining sexual assault, with all sexual acts including kissing deemed assault if your partner “made no effort to check whether you agreed or not” and including all sexual acts as assault if you were “affected by drugs or alcohol.”

The response rate for the survey was just 11.6%  – 43,819 self-selected responses from those  invited to participate, who were in turn just part of the 1.6 million university students  in this country. So the new report is based on a piddling 2.7% of the student population. 

Not that the statistics matter two hoots when our blinkered media remains determined to sing from the feminist songbook. They carefully shifted the goal posts, highlighting such critical matters as the newly discovered peak sexual assault rates for pansexual students and claiming one in three students experienced sexual assault over their lifetimes, a figure which no doubt includes all the drunken schoolkid gropes that feature in Contos’s testimonials – nothing to do with the supposed campus rape crisis.

Not a single one of the so-called reporters bothered to look at official sexual assault rates for this age group. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey shows sexual harassment rates for 18-24-year-olds of 27.3% and sexual assault at 3.4% – making it very clear that our universities are extremely safe compared to the general community.

For the last two days my loyal followers have been sending in groveling emails graduates are now receiving from Vice Chancellors apologising for the ongoing crisis and promising to do better.

It’s inspired me to put a call out to all you Australian graduates – asking you to spend a few minutes telling these sniveling leaders of your former institute of higher learning that we’ve had enough. Call out their lack of integrity in participating in this farcical misrepresentation of the important issue of the safety of our universities. And urge them to put a stop to this ongoing, contrived campaign to demonise the next generation of vulnerable young men.

Please consider supporting the ongoing excellent work of the author of this paper, Bettina Arndt, by becoming one of her paying subscribers. © 2022 Bettina Arndt 

A review of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act – A submission by the One in Three campaign

Queensland’s discrimination law is thirty years old. In May 2021, the Attorney-General asked the Queensland Human Rights Commission to undertake a review of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The review presented a valuable opportunity to make sure the law is keeping up to date with the changing needs of our society.

The Commission was asked to look at whether our anti-discrimination law protects and promotes equality and non-discrimination to the greatest extent possible.

One in Three‘ is a diverse group of male and female professionals – academics, researchers, social workers, psychologists, counsellors, lawyers, health promotion workers, trainers and survivor/advocates.

One in Three aims to raise public awareness of the existence and needs of male victims of family violence and abuse; to work with government and non-government services alike to provide assistance to everyone affected by family violence; and to reduce the incidence and impacts of family violence on Australian men, women and children. One in Three believes our society has the capacity to support all victims of family violence, whether male or female, young or old, gay or straight, rich or poor, wherever they live.

In their submission, the One in Three Campaign identifies five different ways in which male victims of family violence are discriminated against in Queensland:

  1. Discrimination in service provision – not available to male victims or female perpetrators
  2. Discrimination in service provision – access allowed, but service provided is harmful or poor
  3. Discrimination in funding
  4. Discrimination within research
  5. Discrimination in public health campaigns.

One in Three’s proposed solution would be to establish a competent triage system based upon severity of violence, risk and need (not sex/gender), that would ensure the limited services available would go to those who need them the most. In order to do this, Section 104 of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (“The Act”) would require amendments to remove the Example, “It is not unlawful to restrict special accommodation to women who have been victims of domestic violence.”

Here is a link to One in Three’s submission to the Queensland Government (March 2022)

Here is a link to One in Three’s website

My daughter is an MRA, I had raised her on feminist values, I didn’t even let her father corrupt her, why is she becoming anti-feminist?

Some people position themselves at the front of social waves, some at the rear, whereas many are but sand grains on the beach. This women is one of the former group. Good on her. She’s a #WaveOfTheFuture

“You “didn’t let her father corrupt her”. That sentence sums up feminism perfectly.

As a woman who’s mother was a staunch feminist who raised me in the midst of Women’s Lib Movement, I’ve seen my fair share of corruption, injustices, lies, and destroyed lives in the name of feminism.

As a black woman, lesbian, and an egalitarian I will never again identify as a feminist. And yes, I would go so far as to call myself an anti-feminist.

More and more women are seeing feminism for what it is – a deluded, authoritarian, gynocentric, female supremacist movement that doesn’t believe in the equality of opportunity, equity, or justice. It never has!

Modern feminism does not speak for or stand up for the majority of women in our society; where the majority of women in our society ”thankfully” refuses to follow the cult of feminism.

More and more of us see feminism for what it is and are moving away from the movement.

In a gynocentric society where feminists systematically misrepresent history as gendered oppression, rather than the oppression of the many of both sexes by the few of both sexes.

In a gynocentric society where feminists are constantly revising history and the facts to fit their agenda… Actively denying the evil that feminism has caused throughout history and falsely potraying themselves as defenders of justice who “supposedly” implement positive change to improve lives for all people throughout society.

Yet,

* both sexes had to fight for the vote;

* both sexes had to fight to be educated;

* both sexes had to fight for fair wages;

* etc…

Feminism has nothing to do with equal rights – it scornfully neglects the disadvantages that pertain to men and boys, whilst it kicks down so many doors that are already wide open for women and girls.

It’s no wonder then that just 26 per cent of people in the US would call themselves a feminist, including just 34 per cent of women.

A similar disjunct was apparent in a U.K. poll commissioned by the Fawcett Society as part of its sex-equality report in early 2016. It found that a measly seven per cent of people from the U.K. call themselves feminists – rising to just nine per cent of women. And yet, 70 per cent of the respondents identify as egalitarian (not feminists) and support the equality of opportunity, equity, and justice for men and women.

But according to feminists, “us silly women who don’t want to associate with feminism just don’t get it.”

I’d argue the main reason why so many of us are not interested in feminism is that it does not seek to make women free. Instead, it treats women as vulnerable and in need of protection from the outside world. In recent years feminists have called for denying free speech and in the name of protecting the diluted ideology of the cult of feminism (not women).

Worse still, contemporary feminism has the feel of a religious sect and cult, whose followers want to maintain a sense of moral superiority. Like any zealous cult project, feminists do not tolerate dissent.

For instance:

* Any woman who raises concerns about the witch-hunt nature of feminist campaigns like #MeToo, #BelieveAllWomen, etc.

* Any woman who raises questions regarding feminist corruption and feminist involvement in creating a lucrative multi-billion pound/dollar industry out of divorce, child custody, domestic abuse, homelessness, suicide, and general human suffering.

* Any woman who is shouted down for disagreeing with feminism and told she is suffering from ‘internalised misogyny’, ‘internalised discrimination’, etc.

* Any woman who raises questions about the white middle-class orientation of feminist campaigning.

* Any woman who suggests that perhaps we should celebrate the fact that women and girls in the West are doing pretty well nowadays – we’re doing far better than most men and boys.

* Etc…

One thing is clear: feminists do not speak for most women.

Today’s feminism is not just hostile to freedom, it is also scared of free, independent, and strong women – in a society where the vast majority of those strong women don’t believe in feminism.”

(Source plus readers comments)

And the most popular page in this blog is … #drumroll … The Marriage Strike and MGTOW

As at February 2022 this blog has attracted well over 6 million visits. The page entitled ‘The Marriage Strike and MGTOW‘ was one of the first posts created, and since that time (and right to the present day) it remains the single most popular page in this blog. Naturally I’m curious to know why, especially given that writing brilliance is not even on the radar. Pure speculation now follows.

I don’t know the gender ratio for those viewing the post but I suspect that the there would be fair number of both men and women, although with each being attracted for different reasons.

For men: As I mention in the post, many men are now having second, third and fourth thoughts about the wisdom of marriage with regards to its likely net benefits for them (if any). In terms of the quality of their future lives the decision might well be pivotal. With regards to their finances the decision might well be devastating, if not terminal.

For women: Well. Trying to be nice here. I continue to be appalled by the pervasiveness and perversity of feminism and its supporters. I continue to be appalled by the general lack of knowledge regarding almost every aspect of men’s lives possessed by the average ‘woman in the street’. On the other hand I am increasingly aware of, and impressed by, the growing presence of active female supporters of men’s/boys issues.

And further afield, I am also impressed by the increasing number of women who are questioning what they now perceive to be the unfairness with regards to how men and boys are being treated in society. At the very least they are sitting on the fence and listening and talking, rather than coming out with those shallow and ridiculous responses that we are so familiar with, like “so you hate women then?” or “misogynist!”.

An increasing proportion of women are, I suspect, recognising that the door is swinging shut with regards to how they have been endlessly spoilt and feted and their faults forgiven. MGTOW is (in the very broadest sense) becoming recognised as a shrug and curt wave goodbye that will mean that their own hopes and dreams (albeit still clouded with uncertainty) are retreating from them. If anything is going to get women/girls willing to spend time and energy to learn about men’s/boys lives and issues, then it is this threat of the increasingly likely/imminent curtailment or loss of life choices.

Thoughts?

Women’s Economic Opportunities Review (NSW Treasury)

“The Review will consider how to improve women’s economic security through increased economic participation over the next 5-10 years. 

Your ideas will help inform and refine the next steps taken towards improving women’s economic opportunities. This is an important occasion to have a direct voice about the changes you want to see in your community and our society.​” (Source)

More details are provided in the media release here.

The deadline for public submissions for this enquiry is 6 March 2022.

If you’re content to see the economic welfare of men and boys now routinely disregarded then there’s no need to bother having your say.

A copy of my submission now follows:

Submission to the Women’s Economic Opportunities Review (New South Wales)

I note that “The Women’s Economic Opportunities Review will consider how to improve women’s economic security over the next 5 – 10 years, including through increased participation in the workforce. 

The review will identify barriers to women’s participation in work and propose reform opportunities to address structural and non-structural barriers to support women to enter, re-enter and stay in the workforce.” (Source)

Elsewhere I note that “The next NSW budget will splash cash on fixing women’s inequality in the economy as a way of lifting the state out of the financial shock of the pandemic and the recent omicron surge.

Improving access to childcare and reworking school hours – something flagged by the government last year – are among the items that may be addressed in June’s budget.

Premier Dominic Perrottet has not promised a blank cheque but says the government will implement what it can of recommendations of a state review into boosting economic opportunity for women in NSW.” (Source)

I thought that one quick and easy, albeit imperfect, gauge of the NSW’s Government position regarding gender would be to look at what posts I have created in my blog in relation to gender issues. A relevant listing is available at https://www.fighting4fair.com/?s=nsw. The tone of the matters I discuss in those posts seems to paint the NSW Government as being overtly pro-feminist, and with little or no interest in recognition and support for men and boys and the issues they face. Have a look and see what you think, but the balance seems to lean rather heavily towards gynocracy rather than gender equality to me.

As a consequence I am assuming that the NSW Government has no intention of pursuing a corresponding and similar process in relation to men’s economic opportunities. I hope that one day it will pay more than mere lip service to the notion of gender equality, and do so.

The information that I would like to present in relation to each of your designated outcome areas (for women) now follows.

Early childhood education reform and care

On boys and education
No place for feminist propaganda in our schools or universities’, and
Is child abuse a gendered crime too?’

Equity and respect at work

Harassment and discrimination in business and the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas’, and

Organisations with women at the helm perform better (so they say)

Economic security for women

When banks divert from banking to social engineering
Achieving personal financial security is important for everyone. Dodgy research helps no-one’, and
On taxation and the ‘Female Economy’’

On the basis that your agency has chosen to completely disregard the interests and the welfare of one half of the community (in this case, men and boys) then I anticipate that you would support my right – in the context of this submission – to do likewise. Looking towards the future … I suggest losing the unfortunate ideological bias and trying to do better. For all our sakes.

And finally, a few parting words and diagrams regarding the male perspective:

For every 100 women

#GenderEqualityWhenItSuits: A submission to the Review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012
Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too
Prediction: No college graduation speaker will mention the 29% 'gender  college degree gap' for the Class of 2018 | American Enterprise Institute -  AEI

Accelerating Women (Telstra Business Awards)

Australian telecom behemoth ‘Telstra’ runs a program they’ve entitled the “Best of Business Awards”, within which there are eight categories. One of these categories specifically relates to gender, and it’s called ‘Accelerating Women’.

It’s said to be for “businesses actively challenging exclusion and inequality to create meaningful and lasting equity for women” (Source).

There is no award category specifically for men and/or boys. Why? Because males are doing so well in society that they don’t need (let alone deserve) any encouragement?

I’m not sure, so let’s ask them. (Done)

If and when they choose to respond then rest assured that I will post details here. Alternately should this post remain unchanged from this day forth, then you may confidently assume this organisation to be little more than a biased virtue-signaling joke.

In Australia is it legally permissible to charge feminists a higher price, i.e. a surcharge?

In another post I wrote about the so-called ‘Pink Tax’. In this post I wanted to talk about an idea I have – for – let’s call it a ‘Purple Tax’.

Today I sent an email today to the Queensland Office of Fair Trading:

“Good morning, I have just a quick query to submit if I may.
Would you please advise if it is legally permissible in Queensland to implement a pricing surcharge that would only apply in the case of self-identified feminists. An example might be the sale of a property (residential real estate) with one advertised price for the general citizenry, and then a different higher price that would apply to feminists. Note that this would not be a gender-based pricing differential as only a small minority of women identify as feminists, plus some males also identify as feminists or strong supporters of feminist ideology.
Thank you, I look forward to receiving your advice in due course.”

They kindly wrote back to advise me that:

“The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) does not administer any legislation that regulates the price of goods and services provided by a business. A business is entitled to charge what they like for a product or service in the spirit of a competitive market. For this reason the OFT is unable to assist.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. However, should you require clarification you may wish to speak to a Customer Service Officer on telephone 13 QGOV (13 74 68).

If you need any further information you may wish to contact the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC).

Kind regards”

<Hmm, where to next? To be continued>

Some potentially relevant sources:

Q & A Payment surcharges (Australia)

General Protections Workbook (Australia)

One for Women – An Australian business that only accepts female customers

Q&As on business, discrimination and equality, by the International Labour Organisation

Draft National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032

The Australian Government is developing a National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 to replace the existing National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022.

The deadline for public submissions is 25 February 2022.

Firstly, here is a link to a copy of the draft Plan

“The draft National Plan has been developed through consultation with victim-survivors, specialist services, representatives from the health, law and justice sectors, business, and community groups, all levels of government and other experts. This consultation opportunity builds upon previous consultations including:

I prepared a brief submission using the online questionnaire format which was relatively quick and painless, however I couldn’t easily save a copy to reproduce on this page.

Below are just some notes that I made earlier on in the process:

Let’s start nice and simple with a word search of the draft Plan looking for the terms ‘male victim’ and/or ‘female perpetrator’ and/or ‘abusive women’. How about a reference to the best known/established Australian organisation that represent male victims of domestic violence, the One in Three group? And what about the important term ‘bilateral violence’? Ok, surprise, surprise, no hits anywhere there.

Normally these sort of documents begin with a section entitled ‘What is domestic violence?’, and then trot out the tired claim that ‘whilst sometimes men may be victims of domestic violence, the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women’ (and then aim to use this as justification for ignoring male victims for the remainder of the document). The draft Plan gets around that believability problem by entitling the relevant section as ‘What is violence against women and children?’, creating the impression that domestic violence is limited to that one form of action or behaviour. (Page 10)

The first modification of the Plan that I requested was a change in its name to the ‘National Plan to Reduce Domestic Violence in the Community’ (or similar). The current name of the plan is a ridiculous, outdated affront to the victims of abusive women/girls and their families.

Next, the draft Plan features a section identified as “Drivers of violence against women and children” (Page 12), wherein the authors note:

Violence against women is not caused by any single factor. However, Australia’s national guide to prevent violence against women, Change the Story, sets out that violence against women has distinct gendered drivers. Evidence points to four factors that most consistently predict or drive violence against women and explain its gendered patterns.

  • Driver 1: Condoning of violence against women.
  • Driver 2: Men’s control of decision-making and limits to women’s independence in public and private life.
  • Driver 3: Rigid gender stereotyping and dominant forms of masculinity.
  • Driver 4: Male peer relations and cultures of masculinity that emphasise aggression, dominance and control.

The primary driver of violence against women is gender inequality, however this also intersects with other forms of discrimination and disadvantage that can marginalise people and make it more likely that some groups of women and children will experience greater levels of violence than others.

But what of two factors that studies have shown to be absolutely seminal – although not in feminist-conducted research – in their influence with regards to fostering domestic violence? These are the initiation and routine use of violence by the female partner, and the childhood experiences of parental neglect and abuse of those people who become adult male abusers?

Jobs for the girls

This is a job description that appeared in the Queensland Government’s website for vacant employment positions in December 2021.

You might well ask, ‘are there any equivalent positions available in relation to the prevention of violence against men and boys?’. Dream on!

Principal Program Officer, Justice and Attorney-General, Office for Women and Violence Prevention

The Office for Women and Violence Prevention support women and girls to participate fully in the social, economic and cultural opportunities that Queensland offers; and to achieve their full potential.

We deliver services and supports that victims and their children need to be free of violence, and that ensure perpetrators are held to account for their actions and given opportunity to change their behaviour.

We also drive reform to strengthen community and whole of government responses to gendered violence by changing community attitudes and behaviours, integrating service responses and strengthening justice system responses.

The proposed annual salary is $112,502 – $120,480

From the position description:

“The team leads and delivers the Investing in Queensland Women grant program, utilizing tools such as Smartygrants and P2i. We lead and support Queensland Government sponsorship agreements with high profile partners such as the Women of the World Festivals and the Australian Women in Music Awards to ensure benefits are delivered for Queensland women and girls. We also liaise with community groups and organisations across Queensland to engage the community on a range of initiatives that promote and protect the rights, interests, leadership and well-being of women and girls.”