I noticed that reddit discussion threads were created at /mensrights (pre-existing thread here) and at /australia, after the ABC ran a special on the ‘men’s shed’ movement. The thread at /australia included discussion of a recent decision to block the formation of a men’s club at the University of Sydney, as detailed in this article.
You’ll probably ask, ‘What is the men’s shed’ movement?’ So, from Wikipedia:
Men’s Sheds are non-profit organisations that originated in Australia, to advise and improve the overall health of all males. However they have expanded their remit to anyone regardless of age. In many ways they parallel the growing Hackerspace movement which has similar aims and mechanisms, albeit Hack/Maker spaces are more explicit about their inclusion of all ages and genders. They normally operate on a local level in the community, promoting social interaction and aim to increase the quality of life. There are over 900 located across Australia, with thousands of active members. Men’s Sheds can also be found in Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, Finland and Greece.
Further explanation of the nature of the men’s shed movement is provided here.
Let me make a couple of observations about the movement, and my opinion of it, at the outset of this discussion:
Most men’s sheds permit, if not actively encourage, female participation.
Irrespective of the concerns that I express in this post, I feel that men (both individually and collectively) are most certainly better off with the shed movement in place, than without it.
I’ve had some peripheral involvement with the men’s shed movement, which I see as a combination of ‘rad’ (radical) and sad. It is ‘rad’ in that it is an organisation/service specifically for men, in a society where now anything for men is seen as inherently bad and to be feared/opposed. It is ‘rad’ also in that it receives funding (albeit very limited funding) in a political environment whereby the provision of government funds for men’s organisations and interests amounts to a tiny fraction of that provided for women’s organisations and interests.
It is sad in that it survives on the basis of a short leash gripped by White Knight politicians and femocrats. The tick of approval that they have reluctantly conferred remains in place only so long as the movement continues to operate with a diversional therapy/mental health focus, and poses no challenge to the feminist narrative. It is sad also when one compares the far greater range of outlets, programs and safe-spaces that are available to women – more often than not subsidized by the public purse (see examples). Further, female participation in such opportunities is applauded in contrast to the condescending and resentful attitude of some feminists towards men’s involvement in the shed movement. See examples of feminist perspectives of the men’s shed movement here and here.
The level of site traffic is quite low, so in that regard they appear to have failed to capture the interest of their target audience. The movement is seen, by some at least, as fusty/musty and a forum for rather forlorn/resigned expressions about the life in the good old days, awkward blokey chit-chat, etc. The site administrators have on occasion asked for suggestions for improvement, primarily to try to increase traffic. I suggested having a section for men’s rights-type issues like portrayal of men in the media, etc, but that was met with stony silence.
I am sure that the site administrators would respond by saying that the men’s shed movement is not intended to be a men’s rights organisations. I get that. And I’m sure that most of the guys in the sheds movement enjoy their involvement and are unconcerned regarding how that movement fits into the bigger picture of the gender debate. This is partly reflective of the fact that a large slab of the male population still don’t give much consideration to men’s rights issues.
At the same time, though, no-one can tell me that the social backdrop re: attitudes to men, imposition of stereotypes, demonisation by feminist organisations, etc, is not a contributing factor to anxiety and the development of depression and other men’s mental health issues. By getting men to recognise, discuss and maybe mobilise against these factors … well maybe that would achieve more for their mental welfare than just giving them a venue from which they can temporarily escape from their wives/lives.
I guess there are a several of ways to look at the role of the men’s shed movement, marked by end points that might be:
seeing the men’s shed movement as a beachhead on which to empower men to do things and/or participate as part of a movement, that will enhance their own sense of worth and create a better social environment for those that come after them, or
seeing the men’s shed movement as occupying men harmlessly within a sheltered workshop environment granting them some temporary solace from the #@%# that awaits outside
Long may the movement prosper, but I confess that my position lies closer to the former than the latter.
Child abuse can consist of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and/or neglect. Each of these forms of abuse are explained on this page, and an estimate of the relative scale of each of these forms of abuse is provided here.
Sexual abuse of children, the least common form of abuse, is mostly committed by men. Although note that there is no shortage of female perpetrators. Neglect of children is mostly committed by mothers, reflecting the fact that they are usually the primary care-givers. Female perpetrators tend to dominate the other two forms of abuse, although there are significant variations (and gaps in data) between different studies. Links to sources of statistical data concerning the perpetration of child abuse are provided below.
Child abuse, where it occurs within the home, is itself a subset of a broader range of destructive behaviours known as domestic violence.
Domestic violence is not a gendered crime, although most feminists believe otherwise and never stop telling us so. They justify this position on the basis of their claim that domestic violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women. But if we were to accept that, then surely child abuse and neglect must also be a gendered crime given that the majority of the perpetrators are female and the majority of victims male? Why isn’t perpetrator gender nearly such a big issue in the child abuse debate (or abuse of the aged, etc), as it clearly is in domestic violence?
I would draw the readers attention to an article entitled ‘Abuse and neglect: Australia’s child protection ‘crisis’’ published in ‘The Conversation‘. An interesting thing about that article was that it never mentions the issue of gender. This contrasts strongly with articles that ‘The Conversation‘ publishes about domestic violence, wherein gender is invariably the central theme.
Thus we seem to have one form of violence involving somewhat more male perpetrators, and where gender is absolutely pivotal. Then we have other forms of violence where most perpetrators are female, yet apparently gender is not a significant issue. How strange and paradoxical.
Could it be, as some have suggested, that researchers move the goalposts depending on whether the relevant information alternately supports or undermines the feminist narrative? The issue of the corruption of gender-related research is addressed in another blog post.
How about we start telling it like it is? Most child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by women, and women should acknowledge this and deal with it the same way they harangue men to take ownership and deal with domestic violence, i.e. tell all your friends it’s wrong. Though the impact of that approach, in isolation, is unlikely to amount to much in the way of a reduction in abuse.
Perpetrators of domestic violence expose their children to the unhealthy experience of seeing and hearing abuse taking place, thus this behaviour is itself a form of child abuse. Pro-feminist advocacy groups and journalists sometimes offer up statements such as “25% of young people have witnessed physical domestic violence against their mother”. As always, the lack of comparative data for male victimisation is a sure-fire indicator of sexist bias.
The actual situation, as identified by ‘One in Three‘ is:
“23% of young people have witnessed physical domestic violence against their mother or stepmother, and 22% of young people have witnessed physical domestic violence against their father or stepfather” (Source)
It is of great significance that victims of child abuse, be they male or female, are much more likely to become perpetrators of not only child abuse, but also domestic violence, upon reaching adulthood. Thus abusive women are guilty twice over. In the first instance they abuse their partners and children, turning their lives into a living hell. Then, assuming their abuse doesn’t lead to murder or suicide, those children grow up and have children who they abuse – thus perpetuating an inter-generational cycle.
We should be giving equal emphasis to combating all forms of domestic violence including child abuse and elder abuse. Instead because of the inordinate degree of influence by the feminist lobby, the government is concentrating all of its effort on reducing violence against women based on the flawed claim that DV originates from the disrespectful attitudes of men and boys.
I believe that, were we to take a broader and longer-term view of the DV issue, then we should be placing far greater emphasis on women’s role in perpetrating child abuse. This would see, for example, the provision of more behaviour modification programs for abusive women with the aim of reducing the level of domestic violence in both the current and subsequent generation.
Statistical information on child abuse, and related discussion:
As previously noted, many statistical sources regarding child abuse (esp. in the past 5-10 years) don’t detail the gender of the perpetrator. This problem was identified in this Australian study for example. This is rather curious given that gender is promoted as the pivotal issue in the sphere of domestic violence research. Of course there the majority of perpetrators are male and thus entirely consistent with feminist dogma.
This U.K article notes that “mothers are the “unseen force” behind so-called honour-based abuse, inflicting violence on their daughters” and that “of the 100 “honour” crimes she studied, 49 involved mothers – but this was often not recorded in crime reports.”
40.5% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological mothers 17.7% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological fathers 19.3% of child abuse is committed by both the mother and the father 6.4% of child abuse is committed by the mother and some other individual 1.0% of child abuse is committed by the father and some other individual 11.9% is committed by someone other than the parents 3.1% is committed by an unknown or missing perpetrator.
Child Maltreatment 2012 Department of Health and Human Services USA. Refer table 5-3. Other reports in this series can be found here.
Reddit discussion threads on the issue of perpetrator gender, included here as they contains links to further statistical sources of note:
“The Western Australian figures shed light on who is likely to abuse children in families and are in line with overseas findings. The data show there were 1505 substantiations of child abuse in WA during the period 2007-8. Natural parents were responsible for 37% of total cases. Of these, mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect and abuse in a total of 73% of verified cases.”
“The report shows there were 13,184 substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06. Women were responsible for 7,319 – or 55.5 per cent – of cases, and males for 5,846, or 44.3 per cent.”
Mother used one-year-old baby as weapon in Alice Springs street fight (21 March 2015) Features the comment “Women who are victims of domestic violence should seek help from relevant support agencies long before it reaches such a crisis point.” Of course she’s a “victim“, rather than a perpetrator … she’s a woman, right?
An article informs us of the considerable danger caused by dads drinking, but neglects to mention the (even greater) danger caused by mums drinking (17 February 2019) and subsequent Tweets from Bettina Arndt (and another).
Some people have suggested that feminist ideologues using pre-pubescent girls in expletive-laden videos to further their cause is also a form of child abuse (commentary here and here). Another one is seen when feminist mothers bemoan the fact that they are rearing a male and map out a path of indoctrination, see this article for example.
Readers might be aware that there are a number of areas when men compare poorly with women in terms of disease prevalence and outcomes, rates of suicide, and overall life expectancy. I talk about some of these factors in my earlier post on men’s health.
Many factors contribute to this situation including aspects of male physiology, a propensity towards greater risk-taking in leisure pursuits, and working longer hours – sometimes in more dangerous occupations. Other individual factors include things like attention to diet and exercise, and receptiveness to seeking/receiving medical treatment.
Let’s try to split all the factors contributing to men’s poorer health outcomes into two groups, comprising those things that individual men can exercise significant control over versus those things that they can’t.
At the outset we must recognise that there is clearly a huge range of individual variation within male and female populations in relation to these factors with further variables like degree of education, income level, and age for example. Thus there are limits as to the extent that we can make meaningful generalisations about “all men” or “all women”. Further, in the case of some factors over which one might think people do have control, the extent to which an individual actually can exercise personal choice, is very limited in some cases. An example of this would be a poorly educated man choosing to engage in a risky occupation to support his family.
So what of the factors that most individuals don’t have any control over? Well one that springs to mind are decisions made by governments, health agencies and drug companies (for example), that determine funding priorities/subsidies/etc for medical research and treatment. To give an example, the fact that the death rate from prostate cancer is higher than for breast cancer might be more indicative of the disproportionately greater funding for breast cancer research and treatment than the extent to which men “take their health seriously“.
And yet despite the above, all too often the focus of campaigns and articles about men’s health seems to be an implied or overt suggestion that men’s health problems are of their own making – that if men weren’t so silly/lazy then everything and everyone would be better off.
For now I’ll just mention a few examples, with more perhaps to be added later.
I came across this article about a men’s health campaign fronted by well-known actor Samuel L Jackson. Jackson was visiting the UK to promote a new male cancer campaign called ‘One For The Boys’ that hopes to “change male mentality”. Apparently men in the UK are 60% more likely to get the cancers that affect all sexes and 70% more likely to die from these cancers.
The campaign is based on the premise that the higher incidence of cancer in men is caused by men neglecting their health. “If only men would only stop being so dumb and talk about our health then we’d stop dying from cancer in greater numbers.”
The author of the article disputes both the validity and appropriateness of this message, claiming that a major reason for the different rates of cancer between men and women is greater expenditure of research and treatment in relation to women’s health.
The author would prefer a more positive message for men, and suggests something more along the following lines:
“Listen brother, every man’s and woman’s life is precious so why are we putting less time, energy and money into fighting cancer in men? It doesn’t make sense to me. Is it any wonder that more men than women are dying of cancer every single day? Are you okay with that? I’m not. So here’s what we’re going to do. Us men, all of us, we’re going to get together and make sure we start putting more time, energy and money into fighting male cancer, cos that’s the only way we’re going to beat this goddam, mother***ing disease. So who’s with me? Are you with me brother? Are you with me?”
The author closes with: “Now that’s the kind of good man narrative that I’d be happy to be part of, and it could apply to any of the issues that men and boys face.”
Fast forward to February 2015 and Ice-T has established the Male Awareness Foundation (MAF), which appears to be in a similar vein. MAF is described as a non-profit organization whose mission is to reach men and boys where they live, work, play, and pray with sickness prevention messages and tools, screening programs, educational material, advocacy opportunities, and patient referrals.
Now the following media story may appear relatively benign, and the research was no doubt well-meaning, but male-shaming remains nonetheless quite apparent. On 6 October 2014 an item appeared on the television news entitled ‘Men at risk of mental health problems‘.
I subsequently wrote to the Australian HQ of the ‘Movember’ organisation to query whether the ‘problem is that men don’t take their health seriously’ angle for the story originated with them or whether the media created this angle of their own volition. I received the following reply the next morning:
“Thanks for your email this morning in response to the news coverage overnight.
With regard to the claim that some men don’t take their health seriously, this was a finding from a study we conducted last month into the attitudes Australian men have towards their health and well-being. It revealed that 1 in 3 Aussie men don’t take their health seriously, in response to a specific question that asks whether they agree or not with the statement ‘I take my health seriously’. We surveyed a representative sample of over 1,500 men from around the country, aged 18+.
The media reported it as 1/3 , so they (not Movember) are saying it’s all men. In fact, it’s good to know that 2/3 do take health seriously, but there’s still some work to be done to raise awareness amongst the remaining 1/3 who don’t.
The purpose of the report is to shine a light on some of the challenges facing men and their health, with a view to raising awareness and sparking conversations about these issues, something the Movember aims to do through our annual Mo growing campaign. It certainly wasn’t intended to denigrate men or portray them negatively. We’re all about supporting men, raising awareness about their health and funding programs that help tackle prostate cancer, testicular cancer and men’s mental health.
I hope that answers your query, Chris. Please do get back in touch if you have any further questions or concerns.” (Meagan Bell, Movember, 7 October, 2014)
I wrote back as follows:
“Thanks for your prompt response. Yes, I don’t disagree with the fact that some men need to take their health more seriously, and they should be encouraged and supported in doing so. My concern is that there are many factors contributing to men health problems, and that how seriously they take their health is but one of these. It is unfortunate though that this aspect – which brings with it an element of male-shaming – seems to more often than not be the focus of media articles and health campaigns. I would like to see more effort made to put this variable into a broader perspective of men’s health and for men to be encouraged – in a positive way – to do what they can to maintain good health.
Recognition must also be given to the fact that some contributing factors, like government support for medical research and treatment for men’s health issues versus the level of support given to women’s health issues – are not directly under men’s control.”
Another common assertion about men and their health – particularly mental health – is that men need to talk about things more. Especially their feelings.
A couple of issues crop up here:
When men do speak up they are often shamed or called things in the media/social media. Things like ‘whiny man-child’
Research and anecdotal evidence suggests that many men are not helped by talking about things, this approach only adding to their anxiety. Most likely this is a point of difference between most men and most women.
Dr Zac Turner on whether men should get a vasectomy (10 April 2022) “I believe his connection to ‘neutering’ with getting a vasectomy is grounded in toxic masculinity”. Mind you, if a woman was concerned about contraception and/or medical procedures then that *wouldn’t be* Toxic Femininity, clear? Thanks #newscomauHQ
How’s your walnut, mate? Why men don’t like to talk about their enlarged prostate (4 May 2016) The second shaming article in ‘The Conversation‘ this week. The theme of this one is that men are ignorant. Author avoids mention of contentious issues like number of related male deaths and paucity of research funding relative to (for e.g.) breast cancer.
I made mention of an Australian web site called The Conversation in an earlier post. The Conversation features articles that range from politics and general current affairs to more esoteric matters, with a marked predisposition towards the tastes and values of left-leaning progressive liberals.
Most readers comments seem to be penned by sycophantic members of the ‘chardonnay set’ and career academics, although it’s hard to say if they are truly representative of the overall readership given that many other comments are moderated into oblivion.
Feminism and feminist topics are heavily covered (example), whilst mens issues are all but ignored. As a consequence, The Conversation often runs articles concerning domestic violence, sexual assault, and the ‘wage gap’ with only minor variations around the standard feminist theme on those subjects.
On 1 October 2014 they ran an article entitled ‘Why don’t we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence?‘ by Sarah Wendt. There was nothing exceptional about the article – it claimed that domestic violence was a gendered issue, made no mention of male victims or female perpetrators, and slipped in a promo for the author’s book. Absolutely typical of its genre really.
No, the exceptional part was the fact that almost all of the readers comments were critical of the biased treatment of the subject. Later, many also raised the issue of the relatively large number of comments being removed. Some readers also queried why the author of the article had chosen not to contribute her thoughts regarding the unfolding discussion.
I launched into the fray quite early on, commenting thus:
“So “Domestic violence is about gender power relations”? What then of recent research that tells us that lesbian couples are the most predisposed towards partner violence?
This ongoing feminist monopolisation of the DV debate is tired and its wrong. If we want to tackle the scourge of DV, rather than just lob grenades in a war against a mythical patriarchy, then we need to acknowledge, discuss and address the entire problem not just the bits that fit into the feminist narrative.”
Based on my earlier experience with The Conversation I was surprised by the lack of punitive action by the site’s moderator. All that changed the next afternoon, however, when the thought police suddenly appeared on the scene and removed sixteen of the comments. By the time the site stopped accepting readers comments at lunchtime the following day, a total of twenty-seven comments had been removed.
In a final hurrah before the editorial team took their bat and ball and ran home, Helen Westerman, Deputy Managing Editor at The Conversation, posted a comment stating that:
“Nowhere does this piece suggest that domestic violence does not affect men. We have run many pieces making the point that men are also subject to partner violence (by women or other men) and I thank the men here who have shared their experiences. They are moving and valid.
And I would ask that this understanding is also extended to the viewpoint of women around this topic and that women be allowed to speak about this issue. And I also thank the women who have left their experiences here. They are moving and valid.
Sadly, this debate so often this devolves into a zero sum game: if women’s perspectives on violence are written about, then somehow it means that men’s are being “ignored”. Simply not true.
The hard truth is whichever way you cut the cake, women are affected disproportionately more than men by domestic violence. However, men are more affected by violence in general.
Neither fact should make us feel particularly proud – and should make us want to change this situation. The common ground here is that it shouldn’t happen to anybody, not matter who is meting it out.
It makes for very uncomfortable reading and elicit strong emotions. But we’ve got to talk about it.”
To this I replied:
“Helen, thank you for contributing your thoughts but please, your opening sentence is an embarrassingly poor defence in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about both the bias of the article and in the subsequent moderation of comments.
Seriously, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were reading an article about (only) male victims of domestic abuse … would you accept the excuse that “the article never said women were not victims”?
None of those commenting here have suggested that women not “be allowed to speak about this issue”, and that includes those comments that were binned. I think everyone, like myself, appreciates the opportunity to hear all perspectives on the subject. But this forum is for grown-ups and some questioning and rebuttal is an expected feature of adult ‘conversation’
Yes I agree, “we’ve got to talk about it”. Now about those moderated comments”
Highlights of the comments section included several insightful and incisive comments from psychologist Adam Blanch, including:
“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.
The entire Duluth model, which assets that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.
PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.”
There was also this classic comment from a guy called Andy George:
“Definition of irony:
A website called ‘THE CONVERSATION’, publishes an article titled “Why don’t we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence” calling on people to talk about the issue, then censors comments that are from male victims of domestic violence but leaves the equivalent posts by women who were victims of domestic violence.”
Negative aspects of the comments section included examples of those tiresome, incorrect yet oft-repeated assertions of feminists that:
men should just listen to discussions about domestic violence but not contribute their thoughts (unless to offer unqualified agreement) because to do so only “derails” the discussion
men only raise the subject of male victims and/or female perpetrators in order to excuse/minimise the behaviour of male batterers and/or deny/minimise the experiences of battered women
by raising concerns about the appropriateness of feminists continually asserting that ‘domestic violence = men’s violence towards women’ men are attacking and denigrating female victims, and women generally
Anyway, well done to all the men and women who made the effort to bring the author’s sexist bias to account. Hopefully this will be a harbinger of the reaction to the inevitable future displays of sexism and gender bias at The Conversation, and in the media generally. Enough is enough.
See also:
Reddit discussion thread concerning moderation in relation to another article at The Conversation
“As the site’s charter admits, it hopes to ‘give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas’, and aims to work for the advancement of the ‘public good.’ It also promises to be ‘editorially independent’, provide ‘diverse’ content and be ‘free of commercial or political bias.’ Whether it achieves this is open to question.
Professor Judith Sloan, another academic who can boast a tangible impact on policy and public debate, is unconvinced:
‘this site strikes me as emblematic of all that is wrong with Australian universities. Crammed with puerile, naïve, left-wing tosh, the contributing academics…really have no idea when it comes to serious public policy contributions.'”
A rather one-sided ‘conversation’, by Tony Thomas (14 February 2014) Another group – not MRA-related – express their concern about the level of bias evident at The Conversation
Postscript 25 January 2015: There are a few occasions when the moderator remains in his/her kennel, and then it’s refreshing to see that adults can indeed engage in vigorous debate without chaos ensuing. Look at this article for example.
Postscript 23 March 2015: A moderator removed a comment I added to this article about domestic violence. My comment was as follows:
“Rob, I haven’t read your report yet (but will do so shortly), so the following comment is based on what I’ve read in the media. It appears that your report talks about the need for more & better intervention and behaviour modification programs for perpetrators, but that your recommendations in this regard are limited to male perpetrators.
Can I ask why you would not adopt a gender-neutral approach in this regard and have programs that catered for both male and female perpetrators. I mean, it’s not as though there are so few violent women that we can afford to just wave them away.
Postscript 1 April 2015: A moderator removed a comment I added to this article about sexual assault. My comment was as follows:
“It’s deeply ironic that the title of your article is “let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators”, but within the first sentence you exclude acknowledgement or consideration of all female perpetrators of sexual assault. On what basis? There’s less reported crimes involving female perps, so it’s OK to just airbrush them out?
I’m also troubled by you referencing the 2013 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women survey, which didn’t bother to ask respondents about their attitudes towards violence to men. Thus the questions about violence towards women were robbed of context and so we don’t know the extent to which the issue is men’s attitudes towards women, or Australians attitudes towards violence generally.”
Reader Craig asked: Why was a dissenting comment regarding information contained in this article, with links to support its claims, removed by the moderator? There was no abuse or apparent breaching of the Community Standards (unless it was a Twitter technicality?)
Moderator Cory replies: We also require research that’s credible:
“Back up your ideas with evidence and fact where possible. If you’re claiming something as scientific fact, try to provide credible references.”
While some of the links were fine, many of them – upon reading them – were less than credible. They were closer to a smear campaign than anything resembling research. This is also prohibited in our community standards:
“We’ll distinguish between constructive comments and smear campaigns. We’ll remove any deliberate attempts to misinform, distort facts or misrepresent the opinions of others.”
Smear campaign? WTF? “astrategytodiscreditaperson,esp.apublicfigure,throughdisparagingremarksorfalseaccusations“. We are talking about ideas, Cory. Can anyone point me towards any of the linked papers on this page that attacked a person. Aren’t the readers of The Conversation mature enough to, you know, exercise their own judgement about others’ opinions?
Firstly, what do I mean by the term “fudging” in the context of this blog post?
to present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead and/or
to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.
So how do feminists and their allies, go about fudging statistics? Well the most common technique used, so prevalent that it’s virtually a hallmark of feminist literature, is to report statistics in relation to female victimhood in the absence of comparative figures for men and boys. Such information is (or at least, was) generated in surveys but usually went unreported, unless doing so would support the feminist perspective.
Thus subsequently, and in a worrying trend, more and more research projects undertaken by pro-feminist organisations don’t include male subjects in surveys. Here is an example from the Australian Human Rights Commission (July 2023):
Nor does contemporary research typically investigate impacts on males and/or attitudes towards men (examples here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Clearly with corresponding data in relation to males unavailable then rapporteurs can easily deflect requests for contextual information. Information which would, in many cases, otherwise weaken their claims of gendered victimhood.
Thus biased researchers can represent a social problem as being gendered when it is not. And so the next researcher builds on existing incomplete research and concludes and/or implies in their report … this problem rarely affects men, or affects men in different & lesser ways, etc (but we can’t be sure because no data). And the cycle of gender bias in research, and subsequently in policy formulation, rolls on.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believe the reverse to be true, and that there is a ‘gender data gap’ with “male-biased surveys that fail to capture women’s perspectives, their needs and their economic value”. They provide a 3rd world example upon which I am not qualified to comment, but with regards to 1st world countries their proposition is laughable. This Australian feminist writer, Kristine Ziwica, is pushing the same line (12 March 2019).
A paper by Dr. Murray Straus addressed the issue of feminists distorting domestic violence data. He identified the seven primary methods they used as being:
To suppress Evidence
To avoid obtaining data inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
To cite only studies that show Male Perpetration
To conclude that results support Feminist beliefs when they do not
To create “evidence” by citation
To obstruct publication of articles and obstruct funding research that might contradict the idea that male dominance is the cause of PV (see this post)
To harass, threaten, and penalize researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs (see this post)
I was studying the readers comments in relation to a rather biased article about domestic violence. One comment was from a respected spokesperson on men’s health issues, Adam Blanch. Adam was talking about the latest ‘Personal Safety Survey‘ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is what Adam had to say:
“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.
The entire Duluth model, which asserts that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.
PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.
The 2012 report sampled less than 20% the number of women than men, down from 25% in the 2005 survey. though overall they increased the numbers for both genders for 2012, the male sample size is so small that many of the findings are unreliable again.
They were criticised for only using female interviewers in 2005, so in 2012 they trained a few male interviewers to be available on request. However, they don’t appear to have told the interviewees that they were available. This was based don ‘expert advice’ that both men and women would be more comfortable with female interviewers, these experts are unnamed. Who are they. Are they male? have they worked with male victims of abuse? What qualifies them as experts. I’ve worked with thousands of men, and I can assure you that most men will not reveal the same information to a woman that they will to a man.
This lack of transparency and sample balance is unacceptable for research conducted at this level.”
The Bureau shrugged-off this criticism and in September 2016 successfully obtained AHRC approval to only employ female interviewers in relation to a survey that encompasses the issue of domestic violence.
“Professor Triggs granted the ABS the exemption, accepting their submission, which included studies from not-for-profit groups, stating men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women” And so disregarding the flipside … that male victims would be more likely to tell THEIR story to other men.
This is hardly the first time I have encountered concerns raised by authoritative sources regarding the credibility of domestic violence research, and in fact it appears to be an ongoing issue.
Australia’s ABC has a reputation for pushing the feminist agenda, with one example being the article ‘Domestic violence of epidemic proportions a ‘national emergency’: campaign groups‘ by Ursula Malone and Juanita Phillips. Nothing like turning up the rhetoric to keep that government funding flowing through to feminists and their organisations during these difficult economic times. And all based on fudged statistics, in particular that “Domestic violence is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45“.
That statistic was sourced from this 2004 report by VicHealth. Indeed, that report was essentially 44 pages of taxpayer-funded feminist bias wherein violence towards men was dismissed in one sentence in the preamble: “Although men are among the victims of intimate partner violence, evidence suggests that the vast majority of victims are women and that women are more vulnerable to its health impacts”. That statistic was discussed in this 2014 article by Greg Canning and in this scorching rebuttal of the Malone/Phillips article by Men’s Rights Sydney (also available on the AVfM web site).
Now let’s look at three examples of misrepresentation from Australian feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch‘:
1. This well-written 2013 letter from Dr Greg Canning to Natasha Stott Despoja concerns serious omissions and misrepresentations in a speech that she gave on DV (see also the reader’s comments). I am advised that a reply was never received from Ms Despoja.
2. This February 2015 article is laughably disingenuous and quite likely signals a new tactic by players in the Domestic Violence Industry: ‘Natasha Stott Despoja: ‘people are sick and tired of the statistics‘. Or in other words, ‘we are getting called-out for using false or misleading statistics too often now, so let’s publicly discredit all statistics and continue the argument on the basis of subjective and anecdotal evidence alone’.
“The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Given for example that only 17 percent of women who experienced sexual assault by a male perpetrator (in their most recent incident of violence) reported it to the police (ABS 2012), the actual percentage of false cases is likely to be tiny. By one estimate, the actual percentage of false cases as a proportion of all rapes (reported and unreported) may be closer to 0.005 percent.” (Flood, M, 2014)
An Australian MRA by the name of Paul Rogers brought this error to their attention stating (in part) that:
“Even Wikipedia doesn’t suggest that false rape allegations are as low as you claim, which is saying something. I have provided an excerpt below from Wikipedia to highlight that your claim is many orders of magnitude lower than even the lowest value claimed by most authorities … I urge you to state the truth rather than continue to cherry-pick outlier claims because they support your misandry.”
I should also point out that it’s not only feminist groups that engage is this sort of misrepresentation. In this media release, the advocacy group SAVE denounces the use of misleading information on domestic violence by none other than (then) President Obama himself.
Demonstrating the remarkably one-sided manner in which feminists view the world, in the following article a feminist journo criticizes a men’s rights group on their use of statistics:
In a further blog post I look at the feminist predilection towards ‘tweaking’ the definition of terms such ‘domestic violence’ and ‘sexual assault’ in order to better support their claims of female victimhood and generally bolster public support: See Finessing definitions to preserve the image of female victimhood
The references listed below alternately discuss or exemplify bias against men, as perpetrated by journalists and others (often working in the sphere of domestic violence, sexual violence and related fields):
One of the most egregious, shameless statistical falsehoods I’ve seen in a long time, one that thoroughly shames @MayorofLondon & @TenderUKin the recently published Teachers Toolkit on addressing gender-based violence & abuse (22 February 2023) UK Twitter thread by Ally Fogg. But on the positive side, and following lobbying by men’s rights activists, some statistical corrections were implemented
Our uni teachers were already among the world’s most stressed. COVID and student feedback have just made things worse (19 July 2021) Some student respondents in a survey said some mildly critical things about some teachers, a bit more in the case of female teachers. In the old days you would take about the factors that may have contributed to these perceived weaknesses in teaching practice. Not now though. Now the snowflake patrol moves into action to spend the rest of the paper talking about why the survey respondents were wrong. Sexist and wrong. Damn them.
Elite journal under fire over racism (13 April 2021) Article by Stephen Rice which is behind a paywall at ‘The Australian’. Not directly related to misandry, but an example of how social problems are massaged to satisfy the fears or preferences of woke folk.
Not the full story (30 March 2021) Media Watch video. Yet another example of what happen when you start with a pre-determined narrative and then have to make everything fit around it.
Domestic violence on the rise during pandemic (13 July 2020) “The survey of 15,000 Australian women in May provides the most detailed information in the world about the prevalence and nature of domestic violence experienced by women during the pandemic.” How many men did they say were surveyed? That would be *none*. Here is a link to the web page of the agency that produced this research.
Domestic Abuse: The latest lie (19 July 2019) Most men who are victims of partner violence are in homosexual relationships, right? Wrong. But it doesn’t stop feminists from claiming it is true.
Whose research got us a picture of a ‘black hole’ in 2019? It was a girl right? See this tweet from Tom Golden with linked video that tells the story that the media didn’t.
Articles like the linked one now tell us how horrible the “trolls” are for “targeting” the female scientist, but funny how they don’t address the facts of the case – did she only produce 6% of the coding or not? See also this paper from ‘A Voice for Men’.
‘Blatant spin’: SBS accused of sifting data to show ‘sexist’ Australia, and SBS’s ‘sexism’ doco is just blatant propaganda (21 November 2018) Both of these articles appeared in The Australian newspaper, and are behind a ‘paywall’. Watch this Bettina Arndt video for some good background on this issue.
And of course there were various flow-on articles, such as ‘Are men victims of sexism?‘ (3 December 2018) which conceded that the male gender had some problems, that none of these were due to women, but that men were using feminism as a “scapegoat”. Then ‘Here’s how audiences reacted to ‘Is Australia Sexist?‘ (4 December 2018)
La Trobe bans my talk on the fake rape crisis, by Bettina Arndt (2 August 2018) This article concerns the exaggeration of the incidence of sexual assault in Australian universities by the Australian Human Rights Commission and others.
When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) As I state in this post, most papers on financial abuse ignore the reality of male victimisation, and this is yet another example. In the absence of conclusive proof that only women were victimised one would expect a researcher to survey men and women. Failure to do so, as in this and many other cases, is evidence of gender bias to support a particular ideological narrative.
Cutting to numb the pain of sex abuse: interviews with young women in drug treatment (12 August 2016) Australia. Although this article focuses on the needs of young women, the underlying research surveyed both genders. Whilst I have yet to review the findings in detail, my default position is one of disquiet regarding the merit of applying different fixes to men and women. Without a very thorough understanding of all contributing factors, esp. in relation to cause/effect, there is a real danger that we may misinterpret the true situation. Also, from what has happened in the field of domestic violence for example, there is a real danger of a monopolisation of all available resources for the treatment of women.
Anti-abuse campaign targets university students (22 February 2016) Australia. Typical of Our Watch research this survey appears designed to deliver a pre-determined finding of gendered female victimhood. The article reports one part of the picture, but where are the responses to (for example) how many boys were pressured “to do sexual things”? Whether girls respect the ability to consent in relation to boys who are drunk, etc.
(I believe there to be a question mark over the extent to which the Australian Research Council is itself free of gender bias. I say this not in terms of funds provided to male versus female researchers, but in terms of social research projects with a feminist orientation being strongly favoured. Consider the examples provided of feminist research mentioned in this other blog post, as well as this article which will be discussed in a future post. The author of this article presenting a feminist-concordant perspective on the gender pay gap was also ARC-funded. These spreadsheets look at the nature of projects funded by the ARC)
“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. This conveniently neglects to mention that various studies have found that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as per vice versa. Here is one Australian source.
Victim-blaming rampant in Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women – study (25 November 2015) And what of victim-blaming when men are the victims? And of community attitudes regarding violence towards males? Guess we’ll never know because the last thing feminist researchers want to do is provide context for their claims of female victimisation.
In this June 2015 paper the One in Three advocacy group recounts the bias and antagonism they faced whilst contributing to the Australian Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence
ABC misleads. No, it’s not more dangerous to be a woman, by Andrew Bolt (14 April 2015) One of the precious few examples of an Australian journalist pointing out the distortion of data by feminists. And here and here are examples of the types of pro-feminist articles that Andrew was railing against.
The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”
Are domestic violence figures bogus? (22 February 2014) Includes discussion of the notorious ‘intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45’ statistic myth
I spoke to hundreds of men about rape and domestic violence (24 September 2014) Note that this is a different survey to that discussed by Adam Blanch earlier. It is certainly feasible that interviewers might influence survey respondents. It hardly fills one with confidence about the reliability of the results when interviewers are prepared to go on record with such strong views on the matter being investigated.
If manipulating and misrepresenting statistics to suit an agenda was a crime then the feminist authors of this “fact-sheet” should be in jail. Many of these so-called facts are debunked in papers listed in this other post about domestic violence, whilst others demand the smallest measure of common-sense to confirm just how misleading they are.
“A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15% of killers, and in murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55% of killers” (Source)
The paragraph above was extracted from a 1994 publication, not because patterns of gender perpetration have changed greatly but because the feminist filter has been imposed so completely now, that we only see articles like this one that present statistics in a manner suggesting that women are the perpetual victims of oppressive male malevolence. (Refer to Reddit discussion thread here)
These final linked articles address the predominant influence asserted by feminists in conducting research, and in the subsequent formulation of DV policy:
Regarding the table below … hardly an ‘epidemic’. The only increase is in male victimisation. It’s no wonder that, in pushing its ‘epidemic’ barrow, the Domestic Violence Industry increasingly relies on statistics generated by help-line call centres instead. And of course we can trust the integrity of those sources.
“Advocacy research consists of collating available evidence or producing new information to support a pre-determined policy position. Advocacy research is commonly carried out by pressure groups, lobby groups and interest groups (such as trade unions) and, occasionally, by political parties, journalists and academics – especially those working in the social policy field.”
“It is difficult to criticize advocacy research without giving an impression of caring less about the problem under consideration than do those who are engaged in magnifying its size. But one may be deeply concerned about problems such as rape, child abuse, and homelessness yet still wish to see a rigorous and objective analysis of their dimensions. Advocacy research that uncovers a problem, measures it with reasonable accuracy, and brings it to public attention performs a valuable service by raising public consciousness. The current trend in advocacy research is to inflate problems and redefine them in line with the advocates’ ideological preferences. The few impose their definition of social ills on the many – seeking to incite moral panics. This type of advocacy research invites social policies that are likely to be neither effective nor fair.”
With regards to the Latrobe Uni study noted above, why not include people of any gender who are concerned about any form of harassment or assault on public transport? In other words get the big picture of what’s occurring. Ditto for all the studies/article regarding workplace harassment that restrict themselves to considering ‘sexual harassment’, knowing full well that this is likely to focus attention on the female perspective.
My initial post about domestic violence within this blog can be found here, whilst other DV-related posts can be located by clicking on the ‘domestic violence’ tag at the bottom of this page. It is suggested that this post also be read in conjunction with:
Well, doesn’t time fly? This site has now been up for six months, features around 100 posts, and has attracted more than 40,000 spam attempts and even a few real live humans.
During that time I’ve read scores of articles on the topics of feminism, men’s rights, and on specific mens issues like domestic abuse, sexual assault, marriage and fatherhood, and the portrayal of men in the media. So much is happening, and bearing in mind other demands on my time, that I haven’t been able to write nearly as many articles as I would have liked.
That being the case this site remains more of an annotated bibliography than a blog in its own right. Nevertheless I still hope that it might prove to be a useful resource, especially bearing in mind the fact that existing online information ‘clearing-houses’ addressing gender-related matters, all but ignore material that is favourable towards the mens rights perspective.
So, what have I seen and/or learnt during this time? Well, quite a bit actually, but the following observations most readily spring to mind:
I have become increasingly disillusioned with feminism and feminists, and further inclined towards the view that one cannot be both an effective men’s rights advocate and a supporter of feminism. This has been a direct result of encountering more and more evidence of feminist duplicity and double-standards, and of their tendency towards vindictiveness and censorship in relation to those attempting to advance alternative views. This is part and parcel of the widening chasm between the dictionary definition of ‘feminism’ and the reality of what is actually being said and done by its adherents. There are a few voices of fairness and reason within the ranks of feminists, but overall the movement has become so radicalised and corrupted that they would be better of consigning feminism to the trash bin of history and starting something afresh.
Whilst the media still overwhelmingly panders to feminists and the feminist perspective, I am seeing more and more pro-mens rights and anti-feminist views being expressed via readers comments that follow online media articles on gender issues (see example and then read footnote below). I get the feeling that feminists are beginning to retreat more and more to their own online hang-outs as they begin to be questioned and called-out. In what is probably a related development, I note that it is becoming more common for publishers to disable the ‘readers comments’ function, for this facility to be quickly suspended once they see that the tide of reader opinion is running contrary to the (feminist) author’s position, and for readers comments to be more and more heavily (and selectively) moderated.
I continue to be shocked and disappointed by the lack of acknowledgment (let alone support) given to male victims of discrimination/harassment, domestic violence and sexual abuse. I have included posts in relation to several agencies that demonstrate this type of bias, but in fact it is endemic within very many media outlets, government agencies and NGO’s. The only difference between them is the extent to which they bother to disguise their sexism. Take for example the organisation ‘Relationships Australia Victoria’. I was pleased to note that on this page, for example, there was little obvious gender stereotyping. But then when I clicked on ‘Safe from Violence booklet‘, I see that the booklet is only aimed at female victims of violence. I ask you, “how easy would it have been to write this book so that it was gender neutral or alternatively had alternate chapters for male and female victims?” Why wouldn’t you do that? Ignorance and/or sexist bias are the only reasons that I can think of.
Another thing that continues to amaze is the massive discrepancy between the vigour with which people rush to defend feminism from perceived attack, and the obvious lack of effort that most put into building an awareness of historical and contemporary developments in feminism. By the same token there is an even greater discrepancy between the fury with which feminists attack the mens rights movement, and their level of knowledge of that subject area. Feminist awareness of MRA is generally limited to browsing anti-MRA articles circulated within feminist ‘safe-spaces’, featuring the same old recycled cherry-picked out-of-context comments long-since trawled from the online ‘manosphere’.
Footnote: How ironic that within a few hours of including this reference to this article, the moderator removed sixteen of the comments posted by readers who had objected to the evident feminist bias – all but two of which I had seen and considered to be in no way offensive. By the time they closed off comments the following afternoon, a further eleven comments has been removed. Further details in this post.
The year 2014 featured quite a number of instances of domestic violence involving celebrities of both genders. One story in particular really got people sitting up and taking notice, in part because of how it was initially ‘swept under the carpet’.
Read through the articles that follow and note how the nature of the debate evolved as the weeks went by. Initially coverage of the issue was incidental, and it would have quickly disappeared had not a few in the media had the courage to speak out and note the apparent hypocrisy and double-standards on display.
At that point feminist commentators stepped in to howl down those who were calling for tougher sanctions against Hope. They found that this time that approach didn’t work so well, and quickly changed strategy. They began explaining how, while yes it might appear to be a case of double-standards, the Hope Solo situation was in fact very different to well-publicised incidents involving violent behaviour by male celebrities. In fact the only thing that was different was the public’s default reaction to domestic violence involving female, rather then male abusers.
The media articles that follow track the unfolding response to what happened:
“A study appearing in the May 2007 edition of the American Journal of Public Health reported that almost half of DV incidents in the US are co-mutual, with 70% of non-co-mutual assaults committed by women, not men. But you wouldn’t know that listening to feminists, the US president, and US vice-president, who paint DV as largely, or exclusively, male-on-female.
In June, Hope Solo, the winning goalkeeper on the US Olympic women’s football team in 2008 and 2012, was arrested and charged after allegedly hitting her sister with a broomstick repeatedly and punching her nephew likewise in the face.
The response to Solo losing it on her relatives, one a minor, was silence. No demands for her to be barred from her sport indefinitely, no calls for the National Women’s Soccer League president’s resignation for failing to act aggressively enough to satisfy… who?
In the case of American football players, it’s feminists and opportunistic politicians. But what of female athletes of any kind, as well as women generally? There is no outraged constituency to appease when a woman is accused of or caught committing DV.
In May, a lift security camera video surfaced showing singer Solange Knowles beating up her brother-in-law, rap musician Jay Z, and the reaction of people was at best “Meh”, and at worst, “LOL!” Was Knowles released from her singing contracts? Did her fans rail against her? No.
The real story is the double standard around what is the necessary level of outrage over DV incidents attributed to celebrities, athletes or anyone else. DV against women by men is regarded as heinous; DV by women against men is regarded as comedic. Same-sex and familial DV are hardly acknowledged despite the statistically high prevalence of both as compared to heterosexual partner DV.
DV shouldn’t be about politics or subject to double standards based on the sexes of those involved. Regardless of sex, victims should have equal resource access and consideration from the government and society.”
ThinkNow Co-Founder and CEO, Ms Anne Dray and some of Australia’s biggest media, sporting and entertainment identities, were at quintessential CBD beauty and wellness destination Spa Gynocentrica on Friday 26 August to launch the new Bristly Woman campaign which challenges women to help end violence against children by going unshaven next month.
Women perpetrate the overwhelming majority of child abuse and neglect and by going unshaven, ThinkNow asks women to raise awareness, generate conversation and become positive role models in the fight against violence towards children.
All funds raised during the Bristly Woman campaign contribute to preventative measures that address violence against children internationally but also in our home nation. The funds will support local social entrepreneurs in their networks, select projects through international aid agency ‘Boys First’ and a soon to be announced Australian partner.
Over 100 guests attended the launch including some of the 2014 Bristly Woman ambassadors such as comedian, Gana Beethim, media personality Kitty Hope, Logan NC captain Tegan Wally, musician Mary Hardman and Ballarat Dragons player, Sallyanne Hitz.
The last few years have seen a surge of social programs calling on men to step up to the line to perform some pledge or action for the womenfolk. These have been launched by government agencies, pro-feminist not-for-profits and various social media personalities. The foci of these demands for action have related mainly to sexual assault, domestic violence, and employment opportunity.
The #HeForShe hashtag/movement/thing was a reasonably high-profile example of such a campaign from the second half of 2014. The links below provide a small sampling of some of the other campaigns that have been and/or are now taking place:
Male Champions of Change (also discussed here, here and here) is a home-grown campaign which has now spawned a ‘Female Champions of Change‘ program. And no, the latter campaign was not intended to provide a corresponding support network to champion the welfare of men. Beyond Australia there is a similar program known as Men Advocating Real Change (MARC), mentioned in this article.
Most of these campaigns have been packaged on the basis of selling a message to the broader community that feminists want to be inclusive and work with men to address shared issues of concern. Perhaps feminists realise they now have a serious image problem, having been stung into action by developments like the #WomenAgainstFeminism movement. The problem though is that beneath the shiny wrapping paper, the nature of the various campaigns runs contrary to any notions of equality, mutual respect or inclusiveness.
Firstly these campaigns all seem to be promoted on the basis of overstating men’s responsibility for both causing, and solving, each particular issue. At the same time they underplay or ignore the accountability of women in contributing to the problem, as well as their own responsibility in relation to undertaking any necessary remedial action.
There seems to be a fundamental hypocrisy associated with a movement that claims that women are strong and equal, yet continually demands that men step up to address women’s apparently helplessness in the face of real or imagined adversity.
Secondly, it is telling that no similar movements have been proposed or created by women to support men. In fact, there is no sense of reciprocity whatsoever. Nor is there even public acknowledgement that men might need or deserve similar recognition or support. And heaven help the women who dare to raise awareness of the need to help men & boys (example).
Thirdly, and in what must be a soul-destroying experience for the ‘white knights‘ who flutter around these campaigns like moths to a flame, many feminists resent men who openly support these campaigns. Do read this criticism, by a feminist journalist, of an admittedly ludicrous initiative by male staff of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
And thus whilst we have one group of feminists demanding that men ‘help’ women, other feminists berate them for interfering in women’s issues and/or for seeking thanks/congratulations for being good. This is apparent, for example, in this Facebook post about a recent campaign known as ‘Red my Lips’ … peruse the bitter and angry comments by feminists and other ‘white knights’ directed at men behind the campaign – and men generally.
Change Makers, Indoctrination for Australian men seeking help in becoming a suitably compliant puppy in the workplace (December 2022) And no, there’s no equivalent training available for women.
Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak? (10 March 2016) Australia. And of course no reciprocal expectation on women to attend events addressing male issues (unless to pull fire alarms and disrupt proceedings). See also my related blog post here.
Most disturbing of all are those instances where men are called upon to aid and abet the indoctrination of boys in feminist doctrine as discussed at ‘We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology‘ (20 July 2015)
Oh and this is rich. Actress Rose McGowan castigates gay men (“as misogynistic as straight men, or more so“) for not doing more to advance women’s rights in the middle East. More here
We have just seen Julien Blanc tossed out of Australia, a fellow that apparently makes a living running seminars on how to pick up women. I don’t support him or the whole PUA thing, but yet again I can’t help noticing that men were called upon to deal with him.
Still in Australia, ex-Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce headed a Task Force on Family and Domestic Violence. Submissions to the Inquiry had just closed at the time this article appeared in the pro-feminist Guardian newspaper. It seems that those people who prepared submissions need not have bothered, as Quentin already knew that men were the problem and that the “the key drivers of change should be men and police“. That’s right ladies, no need to lift a finger, off you go and get yourselves a nice cup of tea whilst the menfolk cop all the blame plus the job of making things right.
Finally, some blinding irony with the movement called ‘Men Speak Out‘ who “aim to engage men in the process of ending FGM and, on a larger scale, to end violence against women and promote gender equality through a human rights’ approach“. Bearing in mind, of course, the negligible level of interest/activity by feminists in ending the practice of involuntary male circumcision.
The very concept of “He For She” makes women look like helpless children. This isn’t even “She for She,” implying sisterhood and communal responsibility. This isn’t even “We For She,” which is one-sided and focused on a minority of victims of violence and social problems, but at least community-minded. “He For She” blatantly states that men have all the power (even when they don’t) and that women need men to do their work for them (even when THEY don’t).
It’s regressive and gender-traditionalist and feminist all in one, simultaneously telling women that they can be free to be doctors or lawyers or strippers on poles, so long as big strong men open up all the big heavy doors for them. It’s patronizing to women and insulting to men, and if a man had come up with the hashtag he would have been called out as a patriarchalist traditionalist chauvinist pig. “Let’s help out those less fortunate little ladies, eh guys? Guys???”
I thought I would create this post to mention several significant developments related to the gender debate that occurred in Australia during the period late August to late September 2014. As usual the feminist lobby monopolised the newspapers and airwaves, and consequently the news was mostly negative from a men’s rights perspective. The silver lining, however, was the level of discussion that occurred, and within it the large number of people who openly questioned the feminist narrative and/or spoke up for the male perspective … even in Tim Watts’ own Facebook page.
25 August 2014: Launch of the Australian ‘Polished Man’ campaign.The campaign web site originally stated that “Men perpetrate approximately 90% of violence against children and by wearing nail polish, YGAP asks men to raise awareness, generate conversation and become positive role models in the fight against violence towards children“. I say “originally stated” because they quickly changed the wording of the relevant page, presumably after too many people called them out on their lie. Their site now states that men cause 90% of sexual violence against children. Many web sites who received the original media release still, however, have the original wording online. (As an aside, this initiative inspired me to launch my own campaign to help prevent child abuse and neglect.)
Gary Johns made two main points in his article. Firstly he queried whether the government should provide substantial ongoing funding to an advocacy group (Our Watch) with relatively little oversight/accountability, in lieu of providing the same funding to the relevant Government Dept to provide direct services to victims and their families.
Secondly Gary queried why virtually all the funding for domestic violence was directed towards female victims when there are also substantial number of male victims. We don’t need to get hung up on the exact percentages, the point is that the current situation is highly inequitable and unhelpful in addressing the needs of all affected families. Again, hardly a heretical position to adopt.
Nevertheless the knives were out in a flash and Twitter and online feminist hang-outs were full of exaggeration and invective about this nasty misogynist man who dared question the feminist ‘DV= Men’s violence towards women’ construct.
17 September 2014: Release of findings from the 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS). See Reddit Australia discussion thread. No questions asked about violence towards men, guess it’s not that important really. Oh, and of course because survey respondents weren’t asked the same questions concerning violence against men, there is no context provided nor point of comparison for the questions about women. This omission hugely compromises the value of the results with regards to forming an appropriate policy response.
See the video of the original incident at the top of this page. If two young men had beaten and spat upon an elderly woman, would they have walked from court with a slap on the wrist. Ermm. No way. Still that’s equality, feminist style.
