On prostitution

What exactly is prostitution? Most people focus on the version of prostitution that we typically see portrayed in the media. This features men going to brothels or picking up women standing by the road, and purchasing their time in exchange for engaging in various sexual activities.

Things get more complicated however. One factor to note is that the payment for services rendered sometimes occurs after the act … sometimes well after. That payment may not be in cash either, it might (for example) take the form of a gift or gifts. In such cases we begin to move into the realm of mistresses or ‘sugar babies‘ or ‘paid dating‘, for example.

This should not however be confused with the social practices engaged in by women.

From here on in we launch into even murkier waters. For example some people argue that spousal support payments as routinely ordered by divorce courts are, at least in some circumstances, a form of prostitution (delayed payment for services earlier rendered). Some feminists, like Jane Caro, have even suggested that marriage itself is a form of prostitution (see here and here). Others go further and say that any form of paid work is a form of prostitution, in that work involves someone selling the use of their body by the hour.

What is the feminist perspective on prostitution? Seriously? Well it depends on the particular feminist you are speaking to, but most see it as highly undesirable and indicative of patriarchal exploitation of women. In keeping with feminist discussion on many other issues, feminists routinely ignore those aspects of reality that don’t support their narrative. Thus they assiduously look the other way when it comes to male prostitutes, woman who pay for prostitutes, women who operate trafficking or prostitution businesses, and women (with other employment/income options) who freely choose to work as prostitutes.

Driven by their narrative, feminists in various countries have lobbied to have the act of selling sex decriminalised whilst making the act of buying sex a crime (example). And again, in this particular debate both feminists and media alike keep discussion focused on female prostitutes and male clients.

In a September 2014 discussion on an Australian TV program, Kay Hymowitz raised feminist hackles by questioning why prostitution warranted being a major feminist issue, at least in part because of the relatively small number of women who were prostitutes. One of the other panelists then stated that it warranted being a major issue because one in four men used prostitutes (cue applause). So it’s all about the ‘menz’, huh? Comments like this reinforce the view that a significant factor underlying female opposition to prostitution is the notion of devaluing women’s ‘sexual currency‘.

Please review the selected linked articles below for further information:

Punish the men who pay for sex, rather than the women lured into that life (25 August 2024) Punish the men and absolve the women of accountability for anything. Sounds fair

Polish influencer just sold her love as an NFT for $250K (nypost.com) (29 July 2021)

The Effect of Adult Entertainment Establishments on Sex Crime: Evidence from New York City (27 May 2020)

Sex worker clients are increasingly women – and they’re seeking more than pleasure (9 October 2019) Australia

Spanish court rules union of sex workers illegal (21 November 2018)

Australian sex workers have a message for women in relationships: ‘Understand your man’ (23 March 2017)

Legislation to clear prostitutes of criminal charges while shifting the blame to the nearest man (14 January 2017) USA. Reddit discussion thread with linked article

‘Why should I wait any longer?’: 20-year-old student auctions virginity online for $230,000 (28 September 2016)

Decriminalization of Sex Work Is Not Associated with More Men Paying for Sex: Results from the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships (24 February 2016)

Eat, pay, love: A new app lets women charge for a night out (14 July 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Daddies, “Dates,” and the Girlfriend Experience: Welcome to the New Prostitution Economy (7 July 2016)

‘Do you think we’ll pay for bad things we’ve done?’ Revelations of Aussie sex tourists in Thailand (3 July 2016) Feminist blogger Jas ‘Rawlinson’ Swilks serves up clickbait journalism that vilifies (white) men whilst promoting a biased misrepresentation of the Thai sex trade. See related Reddit discussion thread here, and follow-up post from the Ms Swilks here.

It is both an affront and most ironic that the author implies that expat men committing suicide in Thailand are doing so out of feelings of guilt (supposedly due to exploiting bar girls). These suicides are a real issue, but I would wager that the cause is the legacy of a life-time of exposure to the toxic anti-male environment in their countries of origin, this leading to substance abuse and general feelings of failure and hopelessness.

In reality many western feminists could not give a damn about the welfare of Asian sex-workers. Their real agenda is male demonization esp. in relating to curtailing the expression of male sexuality. Some background on that aspect in this blog post.

The author of this article conveniently fails to mention that:

  • plenty of western women also travel to Asia for sex (both commercial and non-commercial)
  • many Thai prostitutes are male or transgender (and are apparently not worth ‘rescuing’?)
  • many if not most men who travel to Asia don’t have sex with prostitutes

It is absurd to suggest that “Australian men [are] among the largest contributors to sex tourism in southeast Asia”. The reality is that Caucasian clients are simply the icing on the cake of the Thai sex industry, and Australians only one of many groups represented amongst tourist/expat clients.

Many (or even most) of these so-called sex-worker “rescue” organisations are either woefully ineffective in terms of getting girls out of the industry permanently – or they are out-and-out scams (example).

The dangers of rebranding prostitution as ‘sex work’ (7 June 2016) By feminist activist Kat Banyard

Sex trade surivors deserve a chance to speak (8 April 2016) Australia. Imagine feminists decrying those villains who would deny others a platform to speak. Oh the irony!

Why France Is Adopting A New Law That Criminalizes The Clients, Not Prostitutes (8 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Prostitution row: A ‘male sex deficit’ – what about us horny women? (6 August) and related reddit discussion thread

Amnesty International says prostitution is a human right – but it’s wrong (29 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Over half of UK prostitutes find their work rewarding (5 March 2015) Short video

Tag The Sponsor Exposes The Depravity Of Modern Women (2 March 2015)

A letter to my MP about laws on prostitution (12 November 2014)

Push to ban Swedes buying sex abroad (7 October 2014)

Who runs the girls? (20 September 2014)

Canada is following the wrong lead on prostitution (12 August 2014)

The truth about radical feminism (15 July 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fCPvuoHx0

All about the men (9 May 2014)

Men have a right to prostitutes? Really? (23 May 2014)

Conflict and agency among sex workers and pimps: A closer look at domestic minor sex trafficking (28 March 2014)

Reddit discussion thread on European moves to legalise prostitution but make buying sex illegal (the thread links to an article dated 26 February 2014)

“Getting Away” With Hating It: Consent in the Context of Sex Work (21 March 2013)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/joy-smith-continues-her-attack-on-men/

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/03/katha-pollitt-sex-work-and-patriarchy

http://www.thenation.com/article/179147/why-do-so-many-leftists-want-sex-work-be-new-normal#

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/04/07/legalizing-prostitution/

Do female pimps do it better? (17 September 2009)

 The relationship between prostitution and spousal support/alimony

Marriage is prostitution (A Youtube video)

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/001.htm

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1530033

Other related issues

Radical feminists’ objection to sex work is profoundly un-feminist (9 August 2017)

Why Cambodia’s sex workers don’t need to be saved (23 March 2016)

Feminism and male trafficking (17 December 2015)

When Rhode Island accidentally legalised prostitution, rape decreased sharply (17 July 2014)

Youtube video called ‘Sex, lies and Rinsing Guys’

Australian taxpayer funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Firstly, and by way of background, the concept of institutional misandry has been described as:

“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their status as male. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and misandric stereotyping which disadvantage males.”

It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such misandry it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease.

— After section 6.34, page 49, Cm 4262-I, Lawrence. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. February 1999. (Source)

You might also be interested in viewing these videos about institutional misandry in the UK.

I frequently encounter the online footprints of Australian organisations whose interests encompass one or more gender-related issues, and who appear to demonstrate a significant degree of anti-male bias. Many of these organisations:

  • provide minimal or no services or support for men, and often only reference men in the context of (for example) perpetrators of sexual assault or domestic violence
  • are strongly biased towards, or influenced by, feminist ideology
  • have weak oversight or disclosure mechanisms in place, for example annual reports, financial statements/independent auditing, and measures of performance which (if they exist) are not publicly available, and
  • have either no men working within them, or only very few (gender quotas anyone?)

I find this situation to be of considerable concern bearing in mind the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into just the domestic violence sector alone each year. What’s more, that amount continues to increase and in July 2014 it was announced that millions more were to be poured into agencies to protect “women and their children (whilst still assiduously ignoring male victims and violent women).

One should consider the current situation in the context of the relative paucity of funding to organisations that support men and boys, all whilst the government trumpets on about gender equality.

It also worries me that this list is not restricted to private lobby groups or not-for-profits that benefit from substantial government funding or contracts. Indeed, there are many government agencies and groups within the tertiary education sector that display almost as much gender bias.

I have already allocated blog posts to several such organisations:

The Australian Human Rights Commission (Annual budget = just over $33 million)

Australian Department of Social Services (Annual budget = $4.2 billion)

Australian Institute of Family Studies (Annual budget = $17.75 million)

WA Department of Child Protection and Family Support (Annual budget = just under $625 million)

Workplace Gender Equality Agency (Annual budget $5 million) $5 million a year to propagate a feminist myth and to shake a finger at companies that won’t buy into their delusion. Their contribution to the Australian community consists of burning public money on the altar of feminism. (Postscript November 2018: Budget doubled)

‘Our Watch’ (formerly known as the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children) (Receives government grants totalling between $1 million and $2 million per annum)

White Ribbon Campaign (Received government grants totalling $280,000 during 2013/14 financial year, but in 2019 it went broke & was closed down)

Domestic Violence NSW (Received more than $6 million in government funds in 2013-14)

DV Connect (Around $3 million during 2013/14 financial year, mainly from the Queensland Department of Communities)

The Australian Gender Equality Council (Budget unknown)

Safe and Equal Inc. lists annual receipt of government grants totaling $7,135,582

‘No to Violence’ (Income and expenditure of approx. $4.9 million in the 2017/18 financial year)

Diversity Council Australia (Total income in 2015 of approx. $1.5 million, mainly from membership fees. Many public agencies are listed as members, but the extent of public funding is not identified. All staff bar one are female … diversity … seriously?

Men’s Referral Service (Government funding was around $2million/annum but they are now to be the recipient of a further allocation of $13 million over four years)

The E-Safety Office (Annual government funding is currently around $100 million)

In this blog post my intention is to eventually corral and list basic details of other similar organisations, and then subsequently do further research on each.

Who’ll be the next cab off the rank? Oh, we have oh so many contenders …

Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre – Hmm, where to start here. Well firstly check out how many men they have on board with regards to Advisory Board members/key researchers/HDR researchers/visiting scholars. Think, one or none tokenism. But more to report here folks – back soon.

Women’s Safety NSW – This group came to my attention due to their lobbying against a proposed Family Law Inquiry. You can review their tweets (@womenssafetynsw) in relation to that issue distributed around mid-late September 2019. Their ACNC register entry is here – you will note that they received $253,869 in government grants in 2019/20 whilst spending $192,710 on “Employee Expenses” (with only one fulltime employee). The CEO and Board are wholly female. (Newsflash: Their Twitter account states “Women’s Safety NSW is no longer in operation” as at 27 July 2021. Their former CEO, Hayley Foster, is now CEO of another organisation called ‘Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia’).

Full Stop Foundation is registered as a charity with annual income approaching $2 million. Their patron is feminist Tara Moss, and all seven board members are women. Looking at their web site and ACNC register entry, it’s uncertain though to what extent they receive government funding. What exactly is “contract income”? (See note 4). Also, whilst they list the Australian Human Rights Commission as supporters they don’t seem to clarify what form this support takes (?)

Or another … this one is called ‘Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre’, but don’t let “family” fool you. Safe Steps “is committed to assisting all women and children in the community experiencing family violence. We are an organisation that values inclusivity, diversity and intersectionality”. All female board and staff. Income of $12 million in financial year 2017/18 according to latest annual report on their web site, but which doesn’t specify the extent of grant funding. Safe Steps is listed in the ACNC register but no information seems to be held for them. (?)

Or maybe a group known as ‘Emerge’? “Emerge supports women and children who have experienced family violence, empowering them to rebuild their lives“. There would appear to be no male directors or staff. Their entry in the ACNC register, here, provides various details concerning the organisation. The most recent financial statement lists more than $1.2 million received in the financial year ending 30 June 2018 (from the Dept. of Health and Human Services), and approx. $620k in salary expenses.

Just out of curiosity I typed “male victims” into their web site search facility, and got “Oops, we are really sorry but no results were found“.

Or how about Women’s Community Shelters Ltd who came to my attention via their daily paid placement in my Twitter feed? Their ACNC register entry mentions a total annual income of almost $3.5m, of which just over 1/3 arrives by way of government funding. This mostly comes from the NSW Dept. of FaCS, who explain here the “facts” about domestic and family violence (no need to complicate things by mentioning male victims).

Or perhaps Relationships Australia? I understand that they don’t have many male counsellors nowadays, and one less after the departure of Rob Tiller.

Or perhaps the International Women’s Development Agency? It would appear that there are no male directors or staff. Indeed in October 2018 IWDA advertised for a non-executive director, but lads don’t get your hopes up:

“International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) has an EEO exemption (H298/2018) and requests applications from women only. IWDA has a Child Rights and Protection Policy and directors are required to undertake a National Police Check and endorse IWDA’s Child Rights and Protection Code of Conduct.”

I wonder why IWDA were granted an EEO exemption and whether an application from a MRA organisation would be treated similarly? See here and here. Oh and IWDA seem to get plenty of government financial support too:

“Grant income represents 81% of our total income and grew by 43% in 2016/17. This is based on a combined Grants total of $8.59mil, of which 29.81% is sourced directly from the Australian Government’s Aid Program.” (Source, p27)

Or how about ‘The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault‘? This is the page that I came across first. It reads like a grant application for a feminist spend-fest doesn’t it? I had a very quick look at their site and found nothing along the lines of guidelines to help female perpetrators, or anything about male victims. I searched on “sexual assault of men” and did come across a page entitled ‘Engaging men in sexual assault prevention‘ though. You know the sort of advice that helps us men curb the frothing rapist lurking within each and every one of us.

The ‘About us‘ page tells us that there are no male staff at the Centre, as well as providing the following information:

The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) was established in 2003 by the Commonwealth Office for Women. It is funded by the Department of Social Services and is hosted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

ACSSA is a central collection point for research, information and resources about sexual assault in Australia. Our key role is to facilitate access to the growing evidence-base on sexual assault and to support organisations, agencies and others use research and evidence in shaping policy, practice and research directions in responding to, and reducing, sexual assault.

We collect, synthesise and summarise developments in:

  • research and evaluation;
  • practice knowledge and resources;
  • law reform and legislation; and
  • policy initiatives.

OK, well there is no mention there of the agency being restricted to only dealing with the sexual assault of women by men. Given, however, that it’s an offshoot of the ‘Commonwealth Office for Women’, I think it would be a safe bet that that is in fact the case. Of course if there was a corresponding ‘Office for Men’, then I guess that they would deal with male victims and female perpetrators. But there isn’t, because … men can deal with it (?)

With regards to their budget, all I’ve found at the moment is this somewhat dated page for the Government’ entire ‘Womens Safety Agenda‘, which mentions a total budget of $75.7 million over four years. The 2014/15 budget shows an allocation of $3.5 million for the Office of Women this year (refer page 31), but there may well be further allocations under the Social Services budget (and elsewhere?). On 23 June 2014 I sent an email to Treasury seeking this information:

“I am aware that a womens budget statement is regularly prepared to identify expenditure that is expressly designed to support Australian women. I would like to know if there is a similar statement identifying expenditure designed to support men.
Alternatively, and assuming there is not … is there any source that you can either provide me with – or point me towards – that enables a side-by-side comparison of expenditure for men and women? I look forward to receiving your advice on this matter. Thank you”

… but no reply since. Hmm.

Postscript: Sarah Game MLC has provided the following information regarding the Office for Women in a Twitter discussion thread (February 2024)Image

See also: The Australian government hands out hundreds of millions per year in grants to businesses. We find much of it is wasted (18 July 2024)

What’s happening overseas?

Meanwhile over in the USA Barack Obama introduced one (1) federal program to assist men and boys (as against the dozens that assist women and girls), only to have the feminist backlash begin immediately (and see related reddit discussion here). Somehow, sadly, I can’t see Malcolm Turnbull stepping into the breech with anything similar here in Australia. Ooh, please don’t call me a misogynist, please, please! (See this blog post re: lack of political support for men/boys)

See the article at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/women-are-the-biggest-budget-losers-20140523-zrl4n.html (22 May 2014) It seems quite extraordinary to me that the journalist who wrote this piece felt justified in claiming that “women are the biggest losers” without providing any information whatsoever about what men received/lost in the budget. It’s moments like these I feel like a member of the forgotten gender!

In Wales (U.K) someone did the maths and found that women’s groups/causes were handed 77 times as much funding as were men’s groups/causes (August 2016).

Further organisations slated for review

Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia Senior staff and Board members are all women. In the year ending 30 June 2015 the organisation was the recipient of $8,194,146 in government grant funding, out of a total annual income of $8,795,650. Their main expense was ‘Salaries and On-costs’ at $7,502,877 (Source)

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS). Oh, and look, 80% of Board members are women as are all of the staff listed in their web site. I guess that’s to be expected given that I read that men bash women, lack the capacity for empathy, and are thus are clearly unconcerned about women’s safety … so why oh why would they want men working there? Oh, but wait, wouldn’t that be sexist stereotyping? And what of equal employment opportunity?

The latest annual report and financial statement provided in the ANROWS web site as of July 2022 is for the financial year 2020-21. ANROWS receives substantial government funding support and in 2020/21 “grants income” was listed as being $6,628,189. In 2019/20 it amounted to $10,410,025, and the year earlier it received $4,995,793.

Now I wonder how much the federal government budgeted for researching men’s issues in recent years? Absolutely nothing? But I shouldn’t ask naughty questions like that – it’s probably why ANROWS blocked me on social media.

Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast Inc.

The Centre is listed in the ACNC register here. That’s just as well as there does not appear to be any financial details provided in their web site, and only vague information about who is running the organisation – and how. The Centre employs 12 f/t employees, 20 p/t employees, and three casuals.

The Centre is wholly supported by government funding, with no donations or bequests received in 2014/15. The consolidated income statement shows receipts of around $2.8 million per annum in goverment grants (refer page 5). The main costs for the Centre are “salaries and on costs” ($1.9 million per annum), “office and centre expenses” ($407,167), rent ($227,841), and superannuation ($174,128).

An article from May 2016 citing disparaging comments about male victims of DV made by Centre director Amy Compton-Keen can be accessed here (NB: Reader reaction to that article was illuminating).

Y-Gap/Polished man campaign (level of government support currently unknown). Y-Gap’s ACNC register entry is here. Related Reddit mensrights discussion thread here.

Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research based at CQ University, Mackay Campus. All female staff? tick Only consult with female-focussed groups with just a token male for appearance sake? tick Statistics within web site ignores male victimisation and resources for men assume they are perpetrators of violence? tick (see ‘Working with Men’).

“The Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research receives defined term funding from the Queensland Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to undertake research and develop educational resources pertaining to domestic and family violence in Queensland. In addition, CDFVR is supported by CQUniversity and receives grants from a range of other sources to conduct research and professional development activities.”

Queensland University of Technology, Crime and Justice Research Centre Perform research and teach in subject areas including sexual assault and domestic violence. They appear to have a strong pro-feminist bias and from what I have read of their work thus far, they routinely follow and promote the men perpetrators/women victims model. (More details here)

Domestic Violence Victoria All female staff? tick

The 2013 Annual Report here tells us that DVV’s total income in 2013 was $677,211 of which $609,361 arrived in the form of grants. Some of their major expenses included wages $489,783, super contributions $42,618, media awards $35,251, provision for holiday and long service leave $32,789, consultants $10,675, board fees $4,500 and staff training/welfare/amenities $3,261 (these items totalling $618,877)

Victoria_DV1

Canberra Men’s Centre Outwardly compassionate about men’s welfare but it’s been suggested that CMC are a feminist ‘Trojan horse’ that dances to the men bad/woman victim tune. Their annual report for the year ending 30 June 2013 (the most recent in their web site as of March 2015) informs us that they received around $2 million from the ACT Dept. of Disability, Housing and Community Services in both 2011/12 and 2012/13. Their main expenses were lease payments ($340,118 in 2012/13) and salaries ($277,799 in 2012/13).

Safe Steps Family Violence Resource Centre (web site and Facebook page)

This Victorian organisation first came to my attention when I heard about a function they were planning for 6 May 2015 at which they will be lighting candles for women and children. On 27 April 2015 I submitted a cordial post to their Facebook page just querying why men killed through domestic violence would not be similarly remembered. Well, that post was deleted faster than you can say ‘feminist censorship’.

One hundred per cent female directors and staff (Source, see p9)

Total income in both 2012/13 and 2013/14 exceeded $3 million – nature of source not disclosed. Salary costs and director remuneration not disclosed (p10)

Fast forward to 28 January 2020 and Safe Steps issued this tweet:

“Women, children and young people are not the only ones affected by #familyviolence. Often, women need to leave but are reluctant to leave their beloved pet behind. We assist where possible to enable women and their children to leave safely with their pets.”

That’s right, no men in the families that this group deals with. Funny thing that.

(Other groups in the queue for consideration include: Science in Australia Gender Equity, OWN NSW … )

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too

On Australian men seeking foreign partners

Some time ago I bookmarked an article entitled ‘Why overseas women love Aussie men‘. I was intrigued how the writer (a guy, by the way), managed to package a subject that could easily rankle female readers into something quite palatable. The potentially prickly subject he tackled was the phenomenon of men seeking partners from outside Australia.

In fact the author not only made the topic appear benign, but even presented it in a way that might conceivably massage the egos of readers. Part of his strategy was to present the issue as being one of foreign women preferring Australian men, rather than the other way around. Although he did sneak in that cheeky little quip at the end “If only they were more appreciated at home“. “They” being Australian men.

Although the author focused on American women, in fact women from the USA barely make it into the top ten list with regards to those granted partner visas. As you can see from this source, women from various Asian countries (particularly China, the Philippines and Thailand) are far more popular choices. This data is five years old, but numbers have remained steady since then. That doesn’t mean that demand for foreign brides is static however, with further growth in numbers prevented by annual quotas on spouse visas issued by the Australian Government.

I imagine that the reason for the focus on North American women (in the article) was simply to run with the Hollywood/male movie star angle. Another reason though might have been the fact that many western women have a certain ‘thing’ about being second-bested by Asian women. This is usually kept well under wraps, denied even, only to emerge guns blazing under the right set of circumstances (as mentioned in this other blog post).

The writer coyly suggested that the observed attraction to foreign partners was simply due to the ‘grass being greener on the other side of the fence’. It’s an approach that won’t hurt any feelings, as there is no need to acknowledge or reflect upon possible shortcomings on the part of Australian women.

Ah, but can you imagine the furore if the author had taken an alternative approach and asked the question “why are so many Australian men rejecting Australian women as life partners?“. Not that pro-feminist news.com.au would have accepted such an article for publication. Oh the bitter recriminations and backlash about men only wanting ‘submissive slaves’. The shaming remarks like “men who are threatened by independent women!” and “men who couldn’t get a women in their own country!” The horror, the horror. To those reading this and nodding their head to such sentiments … well I can only assume that you have little knowledge of Asian culture or personal experience with mixed-race couples.

I wonder to what extent this trend of Australian men marrying women from non-western backgrounds is due to changes in the attitude and behaviour of Australian women brought about via the pervasive and overdone influence of feminism? Heck, this could be a good topic for a thesis – that is if you could find a university brave enough to sponsor it.

Many thoughtful men in western countries now believe that their choice is limited to a MGTOW lifestyle, celibacy, or life as a purse-pooch/walking ATM (i.e. resigning themselves to the increasingly anti-male strictures of the society in which they live). For these folks an epiphany sometimes occurs upon exposure to life and relationships within a culture where feminist ideology, as we now know it in the west, has yet to take root. I think this is fairly evident in some of the references linked to this post about cross-cultural marriages. That blog post also addresses the negative bias and stereotyping directed at men seeking foreign partners as reflected in articles such as this. As one reader aptly noted:

“This is Scott Morrison and the Coalition playing dog-whistle politics again. Let’s not focus upon the thousands upon thousands of successful cross-cultural marriages that enrich Australian society – that would be a good news story! – let’s focus on a trivially small number of cases (exactly 2 were cited by Morrison) where an ambitious sugar-daddy seeks his naive, young asian bride. This is just pandering to small-minded racists who operate on simplistic stereotypes. This only increases the stigma against intercultural couples.

I’m angry about this because I’ve experienced this first hand. As an Anglo-Australian who has married an Asian seven years younger than me, I’m aware of the stereotypes that are directed our way. Nevermind that we are happily married, never had an argument and share everything together. This is something my brother, who has a partner 11 years his junior doesn’t have to go through because she’s Anglo-Australian too (Nor did my parents who were also separated by 10 years age gap.) This is simply a double standard based on race that society, and especially Scott Morrison needs to build a bridge and get over.

I have many friends who are in happy, loving, cross-cultural relationships. Unlike other couples we have to go through the rigours of laying our personal lives bare to the Immigration Department – who I can assure you are very thorough. Then after that we have to go through this nonsense. Scott Morrison should stop playing politics with people’s relationships and Governments should butt out of marriage. It’s nothing to do with them.”

What a pity most western feminist-influenced women don’t do introspection. Introspection seems to have gone the way of empathy.

And as for listening to what men say … pfff! As high-profile feminist turned MRA, Warren Farrell, famously stated “In our society, the sound of men complaining is like nails on a chalkboard“.

See also:

For some social context surrounding the topic of this post perhaps take a look at http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/09/The-Sexodus-Part-2-Dishonest-Feminist-Panics-Leave-Male-Sexuality-In-Crisis

Sorry, Aussie blokes. American men are better suitors (10 August 2016) Entitled Australian woman thinks Australian men need to ‘lift their game’ to be more worthy. Australian men say “bon voyage, princess”

Aussie woman goes on 130 first dates but zero second dates (11 May 2015)

Why I am for the Importation of Hot Foreign Women (17 February 2015)

Are Australian women really all that bad? (15 July 2011) with 451 readers comments

Good news: Males acknowledged on morning TV (not in a bad way)

I’ve just watched a couple of segments on ‘Sunrise‘ that I feel are worth mentioning.

The first segment concerned Angelina Jolie and the ‘End Sexual Violence in Conflict global summit‘. The Australian representative at that event was Natasha Stott Despoja, who is Australia’s Ambassador for Women and Girls. Natasha spoke on Sunrise this morning, and I was pleased to note that she mentioned that men and boys – as well as women and girls – are also victims of sexual violence in wars.

The background to Natasha’s appointment to the role is provided here. Regrettably, but unsurprisingly, there is no corresponding Ambassador for Men and Boys.

The second segment was a panel session comprising the two Sunrise hosts Andrew O’Keefe and Edwina Bartholomew, as well as John Mangos and Gretel Killeen. The topic of discussion was comments made by Hillary Clinton concerned the alleged “outrageous sexism” suffered by former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

What was good to see about this discussion was that initially John Mangos, and then each of the other participants (excluding Andrew*), readily conceded that:

  • there tended to be a lot of talk about sexism towards women and very little about sexism towards men (although such sexism did occur)
  • there was too much talk about sexism towards women bearing in mind the progress that has already having been made in that area
  • most of the talk about sexism towards women focussed on women in elite roles (e.g. politicians and CEO’s/executives) and not enough about ordinary women
  • that some women, such as Julia Gillard, were probably too quick to play the “sexism card” in order to gain sympathy or support

It was just a shame that the segment was so short as it was clear that everyone had more that they wanted to say on the topic. Hopefully we will see more balanced discussion on the issue of sexism on Sunrise and other TV shows in the near future.

* No surprise there, given that Andrew is well-known to be a regular ‘white knight’ when it comes to gender issues, as mentioned in this earlier post.

 

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 1)

The Australian Human Rights Commission (previously the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government.

The Commission falls under the portfolio of the Attorney-General of Australia. The Commission works within the legal framework of Australian law. The most relevant legislation in the context of this post is the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the most recent version of which can be accessed here (as at August 2016).

As at 30 June 2022 the gender ratio for ongoing full-time staff was 74% female and 26% male. For all staff however the ratio of men to women is 20% and 80% respectively (Annual report 2021-2022, p124).

The Commission has a number of specialist commissioners, with gender issues being primarily addressed by a ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’. The most recent Commissioner was Kate Jenkins who undertook her duties from April 2016 to April 2023. “She ends her term with the sincere thanks of the Albanese Labor Government for improving the lives of Australian women.” Kate is to be replaced by Dr Anna Cody, whose appointment will commence on 4 September 2023.

Elizabeth Broderick served as Commissioner from 2007 to September 2015. This blog post addresses that earlier period, whilst a further post deals with the subsequent period (up until September 2023).

Thus far all eight people selected to fill the role of ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’ have been female.

According to the AHRC web site:

“Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe.

They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

Respect for human rights is the cornerstone of strong communities in which everyone can make a contribution and feel included.”

See also ‘Equal rights of men and women

A review of their literature, however, suggests that the AHRC is infinitely more concerned about the welfare and rights of those humans that are female, than they are about the other half of the population.

A word search on “men” within the AHRC web site turned up 912 results, which was promising. Or at least it was until I looked at the first few results. Two of the top three results were papers about domestic violence and harassment, in which men were portrayed (only) as the aggressors and women (only) as the victims:

The first paper ‘Men breaking the silence’, by Elizabeth Broderick, began as follows:

“Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.  Attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having negative stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as domestic and family violence and abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. In Australia, too many women live in fear of violence every day.”

In my blog post entitled Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men? I provide many references supporting the assertion that there are as many women guilty of intimate partner violence as there are men, or close to it. But Ms Broderick’s paper gives no hint of there being substantial numbers of male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence … why?

What useful purpose, with regards to the goal of protecting human rights, is served by demonising men and giving violent women a free pass?

The second paper in the AHRC web site, ‘Sexual harassment. Know where the line is‘, begins thus:

“Sexual harassment is prevalent in Australian workplaces. One in four women have experienced harassment at work, and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise. Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

Even given the often compromised standards of feminism, that’s a fairly disingenuous opening gambit. Consider:

One in four women have experienced harassment at work”

How many of these complaints related to the harassment of women by men? How many of these complaints were upheld?

“and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise”

That seems to imply that only men harass men, and that is simply untrue. And what about womens harassment of women, is that also on the rise? One would expect that, in the case of a professional agency like this, adequate context would be provided to evaluate statements like this.

“Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

And again, how many of these complaints concerned the harassment of women by men, and how many fell into the other categories? i.e. men harassing men, women harassing women, and women harassing men.

I then looked at other papers either written by Elizabeth Broderick, or in which she was quoted, to see the extent to which her views favoured one gender over another. What I found was of considerable concern.

In my blog post entitled Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways I mentioned an article co-authored by Ms Broderick. That article is called Know where the line is: Melissa Hoyer and Elizabeth Broderick address sexual harassment. I would recommend that you read the article and especially the readers comments that follow – most of which expressed outrage at the extent of feminist bias on display.

In another article entitled ‘Gender on Agenda‘ (Courier Mail, 4 June 2014), Ms Broderick “expressed dismay” at the small number of women on company boards and suggested the imposition of gender quotas to be an appropriate response.  As I have noted here, here and here, the justification for imposing gender quotas is dubious.

Ms Broderick has on many occasions expressed concern at the treatment of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. As far as I am aware, however, she has consistently failed to address the extent to which men are also affected by harassment and discrimination at work.

Further browsing in the AHRC web site and google searching on ‘Elizabeth Broderick’ turned up many further articles and speeches in a similar vein. This recent speech entitled ‘Towards a Gender Equal Australia‘ (18 November 2014) only makes mention of men due to their potential utility in achieving further gains for women. Men apparently have no issues of their own to deal with or, alternatively, Ms Broderick considers any such needs to be inconsequential.

Would someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I could not find a single instance where Ms Broderick expressed concern for the welfare of men, for example as victims of harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence. Instead men were consistently cited as perpetrators of inappropriate behaviour (or at least complicit in such behaviour) and/or as the group to be held responsible for making changes or implementing initiatives to address problems experienced by women.

As far as I am aware Ms. Broderick has offered no corresponding statements in relation to the need for women to modify their own behaviour, or concerning women’s responsibility towards addressing problems experienced by men.

Further, I have seen very little acknowledgement being given to the contributions made by men in achieving progress on issues of inequality or disadvantage affecting women. The one exception was her own Male Champions of Change project, a program fitting safely within the confines of feminist dogma. Again, if this is incorrect then I would certainly appreciate a reader directing me towards any such statements of support.

In Ms Broderick’s eyes, it would seem that the life of men is all blue skies. Yet when it comes to womens dealings with men, well, ‘all rights and no fault/responsibility’ seems to pretty much sum things up.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick concedes that the Australian Human Rights Commission has no initiatives targeting men. “We have very limited resources, so our work is necessarily directed at identifying the greatest areas of gender inequality,” Broderick says. “So, while we actively engage with men and some of the men’s groups, we have not directly worked on men’s rights issues.” (Source)

One facet of the degree of bias displayed by Ms Broderick is the inaccuracy evident in some of the statements attributed to her. For example, in this 2014 interview with Jackie Frank she stated:

“About 1.2 million women [in Australia] currently live in an intimate relationship characterised by physical violence”

In actual fact the most recent nationally representative survey found that 114,600 Australian women report having experienced violence from a current or previous partner during the preceding twelve months (Source). A tenfold exaggeration? Really?

The ‘Misinformation’ page within the website of the ‘One in Three’ organisation also attributes the following errors to Ms. Broderick:

“One in three women will live in an intimate relationship characterised by violence over her lifetime”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “the Personal Safety Survey 2005 found that 160,100 women have experienced violence from a current partner since the age of 15. This is 2.08% of Australian women. This equates to one in forty eight women.”

“Almost 90% of the victims of domestic violence are female”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “Up to two-thirds of domestic violence victims are female, and at least one third are male.”

From ‘Tackling sexual harassment’ a resource for secondary school students produced by the AHRC:

“Girls can sexually harass boys. Although this doesn’t happen as often as boys harassing girls.” (p9) Based on what data source? How/why is this even relevant to note in this document?

“Complaints received by the Commission show that 95% of people who are harassed are female.” No, what this actually says is that 95% of people who lodged complaints were female – not the same thing.

Such a degree of unashamed bias is completely unacceptable. This is the ‘Human Rights Commission’ we are talking about, not a private lobby group or women’s studies centre. Australian men, and the women who care about their welfare, deserve an advocate who is willing and able to competently and energetically champion the interests of both women/girls and men/boys. The Australian community as a whole deserves better.

Given Ms Broderick’s failure to maintain even a modicum of impartiality, one hopes that the termination of her contract in September 2015 will see the appointment of someone better qualified to fulfil the responsibilities of this important role.

humanrights

Gender equality‘ does not imply that women and men are the same, but that they have equal value and should be accorded equal treatment (Source). Is the approach taken by the AHRC in accord with that definition? Or alternatively, is it more consistent with this one?

broderick2

Scroll through the Commissioner’s Twitter stream and look for tweets in which she champions the interests of men and boys … are there any? Even one?

This raises the issue of whether members of the public are able to lodge a complaint regarding discrimination with the Commission, against the Commission itself. If any readers can answer that then please leave a comment below. An alternative course of action might be via the federal Attorney-General’s Department.

Developments at the AHRC subsequent to the departure of Ms Broderick, and which are related to gender issues, are discussed in this blog post. For those of you wondering about the next step in Ms. Broderick’s career, read this article by Miranda Devine.

Readers might find the references listed below to be of interest … Where applicable I would suggest that it’s worthwhile to also review readers comments appended to each source

Equal Rights of Men and Women, from the AHRC website. No mention of any specific rights for men and boys (undated)

Wikipedia entry on domestic violence against men

Elizabeth Broderick nets $10k per speaking gig (4 February 2016)

Government seeks advice on new sex discrimination commissioner (11 December 2015)

Finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award announced (9 November 2015) See how many of the finalists work to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. Apparently none!? The winner, by the way, was Ludo McFerran

Who will replace Elizabeth Broderick as Sex Discrimination Commissioner? by Jenna Price (6 November 2015) “We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job”

Men are not regarded as ‘Human’ thanks to Feminist legislation in Australia (17 September 2015)

Ms. Broderick’s swansong … true to type right to the end … no support for men/boys, just criticism (2 September 2015) More of the same here and here. I predict that her next gig will be a well-remunerated slot within the Domestic Violence Industry, helping to spend Malcolm Turnbull’s recent generous hand-out.

Men and women must work as partners to defeat domestic violence, outgoing Sex Discrimination Commissioner says (2 September 2015)

Profile of the work of Elizabeth Broderick over the past eight years, by Anne Summers (May 2015) Word search on ‘women’ = 61 hits Word search on ‘men’ = 6 hits (two of which were negative, one neutral and four about the ‘Champions of Change’ program)

To attain gender equality, we need to focus on men (13 May 2015) But this “focus on men”, is wholly limited to their potential utility to help women. Features a reader’s comment by J.D.Troughton:

“I still see a total focus on women here. We need to also incorporate respect and protection for men, and elevating them in instances of their being discriminated against. It’s a judgement call, a subjective assessment, but women look to have it better than men, to me. A feminist will say the opposite. We can’t honour one over the other on sexist grounds (eg. gynocentrism, our culture’s inherent tendency to give more weight to female suffering of the same burdens, etc.), so we need to hear both out and help both sexes. And not just make jokes about penis size, or accuse someone of bitterness and personal issues when they say that dominant gender discussion is very skewed and prejudiced. I mean, you can do that, but you just add to my case. And look like a heartless curmudgeon. And perpetuate the pain that ends up hurting the women you hold solely so dear.”

‘Let’s talk: The shocking new tricks that men use to control wives’ (31 March 2015) Ms. Broderick is interviewed by the Australian Womens Weekly magazine

Gary Johns and Judith Sloane won’t limit Broderick’s plans (11 August 2014)

Calls to change laws to fix women’s superannuation (13 November 2014) Not content to ignore men’s welfare and overstate the culpability of men for social issues like domestic violence, the Discrimination Commissioner now seeks to grant exceptions to discrimination laws to favour women at a time when traditional gender roles (with regards to parenting for example) are disappearing:

“Rice Warner got an exemption from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to contribute an extra two per cent of salary in superannuation contributions for their female employees over and above what they contribute for their male employees.”

Elizabeth Broderick on men’s violence towards women (3 December 2014) More of the same one-eyed assessment of the nature of domestic violence. And women never smash their partners phones? And as is so typically the case, my response to this blog post was not published

Bravehearts: The women bruised and battered in the name of ‘love’ (28 December 2014) Here Ms Broderick provides debunked statistics in her quest to demonise men and misrepresent the nature of domestic violence.

On 8 December 2014 Ms Broderick tweeted about the alarming suicide rate for “young people” but no mention of the situation with men. I imagine it slipped her mind. And isn’t it interesting how gender is specified when doing so supports the feminist narrative, but not when it doesn’t?

Does the Human Rights Commission treat some groups more equally than others? (9 July 2013)

Superiority in the name of equality (29 June 2013)

Open Letter to Elizabeth Broderick Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner (10 April 2012)

Sex discrimination commissioner ignores men and boys (3 May 2012)

The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the AHRC provide some information in their web site to mark International Men’s Day (as they do every year for International Women’s Day). The response was this was not possible due to resourcing constraints. Four years later there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. It is a disgrace for the AHRC to suggest that it is committed to “true gender equality”.

It’s hard to be a trailblazing woman (11 August 2012)

Elizabeth Broderick Sex Discrimination Commissioner, 50 (4 February 2012) Again, men as perpetrators and enablers of the victimisation of women, and otherwise only notable for their potential utility in assisting in the continued advancement of women

Discrimination is fine, says Commissioner Two-Legs-Good, by Andrew Bolt (23 June 2010)

“We need to put in place what some might call affirmative action strategies, where we treat men and women differently for the purpose of achieving better gender balance at a senior level.”

AHRC1

Elsewhere within this blog readers might find the following post to be of interest: 

Since when did it become acceptable for public servants to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem – Prawn of the Patriarchy (fighting4fair.com)

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’

Although forcing 50/50 representation within organisations via quotas or similar discriminatory measures does …

There is no disputing the fact that relatively few women occupy places in the upper echelons of the corporate world. Feminist ‘wisdom’ would have us believe that this is wrong, and this it is a wrong that must be righted – for example via affirmative action measures such as quotas. Feminists tell us that this wrong is indicative of an unfair workplace environment constructed by men for men, which is holding women back from assuming their rightful places at the boardroom table.

Like many others, I have a problem with this simplistic construct. There are many factors, and more significant factors, contributing to gender imbalance in the workplace other than deliberate bias on the part on males at the apex of the hierarchy. Thus questions such as the following, readily spring to mind:

  • Is it necessarily wrong that women are not represented 50/50 on boards and amongst the ranks of CEO’s? (That is, assuming feminists would even settle for 50/50)
  • Exactly what costs and benefits would be associated with achieving 50/50 representation? and who would incur these costs and receive these benefits?
  • To what extent are the low numbers of women in senior ranks simply reflective of what real women actually want (or don’t want), rather it being a situation that has been forced upon them?
  • To the extent that women are being held back in their chosen career paths, for example because of inflexible workplaces, and to what extent do the very same factors also act as constraints on the careers of men?
  • Are women who achieve positions of high standing in the corporate hierarchy more or less likely than men to help women in the lower ranks of their organisations (i.e. champion/mentor versus Queen Bee)
  • Why are concerns *never* raised about the need for diversity in relation to organisations, boards, etc that are overwhelmingly female in composition?

Is it not wrong, and indicative of sexist bias, that all of the emphasis in this debate is about women achieving leadership positions, with no concern expressed in relation to the small numbers of men working in roles like nursing or teaching. And what about roles that are heavily male-dominated, but are dirty and/or dangerous, like collecting garbage, janitorial roles, mining, the military, etc. How come no mention of quotas being imposed there?

Clearly the feminist lobby and their allies in the media are advancing a very imbalanced position. Yet again and again I see articles advancing this position appearing unchallenged – articles like this one – and I know more people need to speak up about feminist hypocrisy and double standards.

This latest article is entitled ‘YWCA conference addresses gender bias in leadership‘. The main point being made is that because only a minority of business or political leadership roles are held by women, then there is clearly pervasive ‘gender bias’.

Before dissecting the article, let’s first look at the definition of the word ‘bias’:

“An inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.”

I would propose that there are many reasons why there might be more men (or more women) in a particular career, or company, or industry, and that gender bias is but one of these. I would propose that in Australia, in most cases gender bias is a relatively minor factor – or does not apply at all. I would further propose that to the extent that gender bias is a significant factor then there would be (and in fact, are) situations where men, as well as women, are disadvantaged.

The article begins with “There is a silence in our society when it comes to the continued gender biases that exist in our workplaces.”

Well if you want to hear real silence then consider the issues I raised a few moments ago:

  • the lack of men working in roles like nursing or teaching, and
  • the lack of women in roles that are poorly paid, dirty and/or dangerous, like collecting garbage, janitorial roles, mining, the military, etc.

Who is speaking up about gender bias in these situations? Certainly not the feminist lobby, an ideology that is purportedly all about equality. I’m not seeing any suggestions of quotas being applied to address these imbalances. But maybe I missed that memo.

The article goes on to state:

Perhaps most alarming is the continuing gender wage gap – women still earn 17.5 per cent less than our male counterparts for the same work, and female graduates can expect to earn $5,000 less per annum than male graduates.

These statistics are real. They demonstrate an attitude and an unconscious gender bias that form a significant barrier to women participating in the workforce.”

Firstly Francis, no, these statistics are not “real”. The kindest descriptor I would offer is ‘misleading’. See my separate posts about the wage gap and about women in the workforce, both of which identify the many contributing variables (other than sex discrimination against women) that lead to the outcomes being considered here.

Secondly, neither the number of women in leadership roles, nor any wage differential that might exist, “demonstrate” bias or a “significant barrier to women participating in the workforce“. Nor do they necessarily even indicate an inequality of opportunity for women.

Take for example, political leadership, where more than 50% of voters are women. Is the author, and others of her ideological inclination, suggesting that women are biased against other women to the extent that election outcomes are heavily influenced.

And then the article asserts that “Workplaces in Australia are not responsive to the needs of women when it comes to balancing both motherhood and their careers.”

Well Francis, don’t you think that one could also say the same thing about men and fatherhood? But then, feminists do have this habit of conveniently overlooking the fact that many of the issues they rail about also negatively impact on men. That being the case, why continue to represent these issues as ammunition in an ‘us versus them’ gender war?

“In Australia, we don’t yet know what a sustained, gender-equal playing field looks like.” but then just a few lines later “The YWCA of Canberra is a supporter of quotas, as they have proven to be successful mechanisms to create a pipeline of young women into leadership roles. Until young women feel empowered to pursue leadership opportunities and have role models to look to, we will continue to be under-represented at the decision-making tables, be they in business, politics, education, or any other sector.”

Aha, so a “level playing field” looks like a place where a group of candidates with superior qualifications and experience are potentially frozen out whilst members of another group are placed in leadership roles … by virtue of having a vagina? It looks like a place where women can only feel “empowered” when assisted by way of privileged intervention (dare I say, bias?). Not infantilising much.

No-one is standing at the head of the queue handing out leadership roles to men. The reality is that anyone who strives for a position of leadership faces significant barriers. It’s not an easy path to take. And then of course there are many men and women who have no interest in taking on a leadership role, or who are simply not prepared to make the necessary compromises in other areas of their lives.

Do some of these hurdles affect proportionately more women more than men? Sure, just as some factors affect proportionately more men than women. Do some women face a proportionately greater barrier in relation to their role as parents than men? Yes, of course. But then there are, for example, women who don’t have children or who have a stay-at-home partner. Just as there are men who are single parents, or married but with a wife who has her own career.

Some of these hurdles to achieving leadership roles are fair and unavoidable, others perhaps less so. Where a hurdle is grossly unfair then by all means address it in an appropriate and targeted manner, but reacting via introducing another unfair barrier (in this case, a gender-based quota) is certainly not my idea of a “level playing-field”.

I would also recommend looking at a web site created by Mike Buchanan called the  ‘Campaign for Merit in Business‘. One of the articles to be found there is http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

Elsewhere Mike states:
“The government continues to bully FTSE100 companies into achieving 25% female representation on their boards by 2015, through the threat of legislated gender quotas. We know from recent reports that the government is planning to threaten the FTSE350 with 50% gender quotas. Because when you’re paddling downstream in a canoe on the Niagara river, and you start to hear the roar of the waterfalls, you should paddle faster towards them, right?

Good luck with trying to find evidence of a causal link between GDITB (Gender diversity in the boardroom) and enhanced financial performance – the oft-cited ‘business case’. I’ve challenged the government, dozens of organisations pressing for this ‘direction of travel’, and hundreds of individual proponents across the developed world – many of them employed in lucrative jobs allied to this insane ‘direction of travel’ – to provide evidence for a causal link.

None has ever done so. The best they can do is misrepresent a number of studies and reports, all of which make it perfectly that there’s no evidence of causal links, nor can causal links even be implied from the statistics. The following are just a few of the prominent / influential proponents of GDITB who’ve failed to meet our public challenges. They include Vince Cable MP. who leads the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms

PS: Readers who might be interested in more of a ‘big picture’ perspective on this issue might like to look at these papers dealing with affirmative action, and the concept of ‘gynocentrism‘.

Other related papers that may be of interest include:

Image

Men need not apply – a video by Janice Fiamengo (3 November 2016)

Is BHP discriminating against men? by Bettina Arndt (15 August 2023)

Paris city hall fined for putting too many women in senior roles (16 December 2020)

Men’s leniency towards women at work is fueling the decline of the West (16 November 2020) From the proceedings of ICMI20

Formula One is 88% male and 91% white – that’s not acceptable in 2020 (16 August 2020)

Why Some Women Aren’t Excited About Leadership Positions (17 May 2017)

Jordan Peterson – why few women are in positions of power (3 March 2017) Video

Maybe It’s Time To Redefine What It Means For Women To ‘Have It All’ (21 December 2016)

Richard Marx slams ‘chaotic’ event on flight (21 December 2016) Maybe Korean Air should enforce 50/50 rule for their flight attendants, but of course quotas only ever seem to get applied in relation to under-representation by women.

We need to rethink recruitment for men in primary schools (17 October 2016) Australia. Hold onto your hat! Is this the first ever article in The Conversation providing a positive perspective in relation to supporting men/boys?

Social Work’s Gender Problem (15 September 2016) USA

More men need to be recruited to female-dominated industries, by Libby Lyons, WGEA (14 August 2016)

The Flawed Arguments About Female Discrimination in the Film Industry (3 August 2016)

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths (18 May 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here, and critical response from Janet Bloomfield below:

Positive discrimination will have exactly the opposite effect you hope for, Melbourne University. Smarten up (18 May 2016)

Do women really want equality? by Nikita Coulombe (12 May 2016) USA

Do They Stay or Do They Go? The Switching Decisions of Individuals Who Enter Gender Atypical College Majors (May 2016)

“Men who enter a female-dominated major are significantly more likely to switch majors than their male peers in other majors. By contrast, women in male-dominated fields are not more likely to switch fields compared to their female peers in other fields.”

Study Shows Gender Inequality Not Responsible for Girls Not Choosing STEM Field (26 April 2016) USA

Where are all the women? Senior APS ranks maintain male majority (11 April 2016) Not content that “The vast majority of rank-and-file public servants are women”, the author presumably wants to see the same imbalance reflected in the most senior (and well-remunerated) level of the public service.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate: Men (March 2016) USA statistics showing decline in male employment 1950-2016

In the Name of Diversity, You Must Conform! (21 March 2016)

Novak Djokovic questions equal prize money in tennis (21 March 2016) Men also play more sets than women. Plus different climate standards apply to men, who must continue playing in higher temperatures.

Laura Perrins: Feminists have lowered the status of women (14 March 2016) UK

I’m so bored of women having to be on board (11 March 2016) Australia

The Great Diversity Scam (10 March 2016)

Nearly 300 women apply for MFB firefighter jobs (4 March 2016) Australia

The two articles that follow highlight the ‘one-way street’ nature of feminist demands and expectations in relation to diversity and representation. Mostly men = a big problem … mostly women = sound of crickets chirping

Juliet Bourke on the secret of harnessing diverse teams and More women on boards helps to narrow gender pay gap (2 March 2016)

Tasmania’s top public servant targets gender parity (17 February 2016) With 70% of the state’s public service being female, will Greg Johannes also be writing to heads of agencies with >50% female staff to ask them to recruit more male staff? Gee, I really, really doubt it.

Now that women potentially face the draft – it appears everyone is against women in combat roles (17 December 2015) USA and related reddit discussion thread

The ten deadliest jobs in America. Oh look, it’s all men (7 December 2015) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Gender equality vital to securing our digital future (1 December 2015)

Why this year has been all about women speaking out on gender equality (27 November 2015)

FF candidate to challenge gender quota law (7 November 2015) Ireland

Men will have to lose jobs to make way for gender equality: Transfield’s Diane Smith-Gander (13 October 2015)

Gallup: Majority of Women with Kids ‘Prefer Homemaking Role’ (8 October 2015)

US women fall behind in jobs market (11 October 2015) and related reddit discussion thread here

100 Years Before Women Reach Equality in Top Jobs, Study Claims (2 October 2015) See the reader’s comments – most are heartily sick of the feminist perspective on this subject

Don’t panic: A male midwife’s guide for dads-to-be (23 September 2015)

Compared to Men, Women View Professional Advancement as Equally Attainable, but Less Desirable (12 August 2015)

Women-in-tech events are anti-male, say men’s rights activists (12 August 2015)

The problem with merit-based appointments? They’re not free from gender bias either (30 July 2015) Amongst other omissions this paper conveniently ignores the fact that men aren’t always the beneficiaries of bias, nor women always the victims.

The case for quotas in politics: the absence of women isn’t merit-based (30 July 2015) Argues the case for the introduction/expansion of gender quotas

New study into lack of women in Tech: It’s NOT the men’s fault. It’s just simple mathematics, apparently (27 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

14 Facts the Tanking ‘Women in Tech’ Movement Doesn’t Want You to Know (19 July 2015)

More Men Than Women Watch Women’s Soccer, While Women Prefer Male Sports (9 July 2015)

Women stop trying to get to the top after just TWO years because they are turned off by having to sacrifice it all (28 May 2015)

The Myth about Women in Science (13 April 2015)

Sexist Canadian “Feminists” Call Others Sexist (8 April 2015)

Women guaranteed at least 50% of jobs on Victorian government boards (28 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Gender quotas key to curbing pay inequality: Queensland Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman (9 March 2015) Here is some related discussion in the ABC’s Facebook page

More US women not in paid employment now than ever before (6 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

We need women on boards for many reasons: ethics isn’t one (20 February 2015)

Gender Quotas in Hiring Drive Away Both Women and Men (16 October 2014)

Want to pretend you’re a feminist but do nothing? Talk about women on boards (13 February 2015)

Ginsburg: Will Be Enough Women on SCOTUS When They’re All Women (5 February 2015)

Where are the female tradies? (28 January 2015) A feminist perspective on the issue

Quotas on the nose: that’s the view from male Australian CEOs (7 January 2015)

The problem with “We need more women in -“ (20 December 2014)

Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit slams Government for helping women ‘leave their children at home and go out to work’ (27 November 2014)

“Lord Tebbit asked her: ‘Do you not think it is strange that when these gender gap questions come up there is always a call for more women ambassadors, or generals or air marshals or something? ‘There is never a call for more women to be plumbers or electricians or jobs like that.'”

Gail Kelly’s Margaret Thatcher-style executive team (25 November 2014) The bank with the least number of women directly reporting to the chief executive is the only bank with a woman at the top

Interstellar patriarchy: Protecting women everywhere from shirts! (13 November 2014)

This discussion thread in an Australian web site called ‘The Conversation‘ concerns a suggestion that men are being preferentially treated due to their alleged greater self-confidence. Both myself and others contributed comments that questioned the feminist perspective being put forward, and our posts were later removed.  The moderators also closed the thread to further comments. As is usually the case, there was absolutely nothing offensive or threatening about the material removed. Ideological censorship pure and simple.

Feminist myths and magic medicine by Catherine Hakim

Where feminism went wrong by Janet Bloomfield

How feminist propaganda is destroying men’s lives (2 January 2015)

When the best person for the job has nothing to do with gender (20 October 2014) Australia

How to get more women into STEM fields: One college’s approach (August 2014 reddit discussion thread)

Why are there so many women in public relations? (8 August 2014)

Verizon’s ‘Inspire her Mind’ ad and the facts they didn’t tell you (21 July 2014)

British Labour Party enforces women-only candidate short-lists (4 July 2014)

The real reason there are not more female scientists (Youtube video)

Get women on the board (3 June 2014)

Percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred on women, by major (Discussion thread on reddit)

Workplace inequality: When one side has an escape hatch (16 June 2014)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/sheryl-sandberg-lean-in-author-hopes-to-spur-movement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/why-so-few-women-reach-the-executive-rank/

http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/12/women-ceo-why-so-few/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/03/bystanders-to-the-sandberg-mayer-mommy-wars.html

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/

http://www.smh.com.au/business/some-men-fear-competing-with-women-20131025-2w5i8.html#ixzz2iuvoQgpS

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/03/hierarchical-differences/

Why women are leaving the workforce in record numbers‘ (17 April 2013)

http://www.ceda.com.au/media/310731/cedawiljune%202013final.pdf (A fairly comprehensive coverage of the topic albeit purely from the perspective of a feminist idealogue)

Women in STEM sole focus of gender imbalance debate‘ (24 April 2014)

Businessmen love to talk women in leadership, until you mention the Q word (15 April 2014) Feminist journo talking up gender quotas

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201310/where-are-all-the-women

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/26/stay-at-home-moms-you-dont-owe-the-world-an-explanation/

Standing tough: Maureen Joanne Sabia on achieving success (4 June 2014)

What can men do? (25 April 2014) An article written by a White Knight about the gender imbalance in the IT (coding) sector, that also has some interesting readers comments.

Only two of 3100 women army soldiers join infantry in military frontline (4 June 2014)

By the way, men want more flexibility in the workplace too

Report cites bias against women in drug rackets

Is ‘Opting Out’ the new American dream for working women? (12 September 2012) Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26828726 (Hand wringing over the fact that >90% of editors on Wikipedia are male, with some interesting comments contributed by readers)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/04/22/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-a-point-but-larry-summers-is-still-right/?WT.mc_id=SA_sharetool_Twitter

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/women-dont-want-to-have-it-all-anymore/story-fnet085v-1226848285611

Do Any Women Work at the Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous Jobs that Men Do? Any Women At All? (7 August 2012)

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-men-honest-overconfidence-male-domination.html (as cited in http://priceonomics.com/the-babysitting-gender-gap/)

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/where-oh-where-are-all-female-guests

Other related posts within this blog include:

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

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

diversity

Finessing definitions to preserve the image of female victimhood

(NB: The following post is intended as a companion piece to Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative)

Consider this scenario:

1. Feminist ideologues use either patently false statistical ‘information’ or misrepresent genuine statistical sources to make a case is support of one or more aspects of the feminist narrative. Alternatively, feminists resist efforts to correct outdated and/or unrepresentative methods of data collection in the knowledge that enhancements to data collection would work against their inbuilt bias.

2. Feminists get ‘called out’ enough times – in public and by suitably authoritative sources – to feel the need to manipulate data collection and/or presentation in order to continue to present a version of reality which reinforces rather than undermines the feminist narrative. Because remember, a lessening incidence of rape (or domestic violence/online harassment/workplace harassment/etc) not only undermines the credibility of the feminist narrative, but also weakens the case for feminist groups to receive additional government funding.

Question: What do you do when available statistics don’t support the image of men as empowered aggressors and women as powerless victims, that is carefully cultivated by the feminist movement?

Answer: You change the rules and/or move the goal posts.

And so a favored strategy is to raise the bar as to what constitutes victimization of men, whilst lowering the bar in relation to women. Thus the position that men cannot be raped, or (begrudgingly) they can but only if penetrated by an object. For women however, a sideways glance or accidentally brushing past someone in a crowded bus equals sexual assault.

The case of domestic violence: Early domestic violence definitions focussed on physical violence, and feminists run hard up against two problems here. The first problem is that the incidence of violent crime in western countries has, overall, been decreasing in recent decades. (Though paradoxically, violence by females is actually increasing). This makes it potentially awkward for feminists to continuing using terms like “a growing epidemic of violence against women“). The second problem for feminists is the increasing availability of independent unbiased research which has consistently found that there are as many female as male aggressors using the physical violence criteria. Gender parity in domestic violence undermines the feminist perspective. Whatever can we do?

  • Broaden the discussion of DV to include sexual violence, including sexual violence towards children (but being careful to exclude non-sexual abuse and neglect of children, because oops, that’s mostly perpetrated by women), and
  • place greater emphasis on criteria other than physical violence, such as psychological abuse, threats to withhold affection or sexual activity, or perceived motivations for aggressing.

A ‘good’ example of this is the section of IPV within the ‘Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health’:

“Forty-five percent of women aged 18 to 23 reported some form of IPV, with 12% reporting one form of abuse, 8% reporting two different forms of abuse and 25% reporting three or more forms of abuse. The most common forms of IPV were being told they were ugly, stupid or crazy (28%), being harassed over the telephone, email, Facebook or internet (25%), and their partner trying to keep them from seeing or talking to friends or relatives (18%).” (Source) Clearly casting the net very wide to capture more ‘victims’, with this effect being accentuated through the use of very subjective criteria.

In another example, I was reading this article and noticed for the first time the use of the term “implied domestic violence“. I then googled on the term seeking background and/or a definition, and came across this:

“Credible threat, according to this new law, means a verbal or written threat, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat, so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.” (Source)

The muddier the water the better, for intangible and subjective criteria makes future correction/undermining of data more difficult. We’ll have those silly MRA running around in circles for years trying to prove we are wrong.

Voila! Data adjusted on the basis of newly revised definitions of domestic violence magically skews the role of aggressors very firmly back towards men. Yay feminism!

See also:

Multiple research studies have shown that women are more likely than men to want to censor data that show certain sex differences (21 October 2025) Twitter discussion thread by James L Nuzzo

More than 1 in 5 Australians have perpetrated an act of sexual violence, survey reveals (10 July 2024) Refer for example to “The most common form of this was pressuring someone for a date or sex (3.8 per cent)”

Lies, damned lies, and STEM statistics (2 March 2019)

Trump administration ‘rolling back women’s rights by 50 years’ by changing definitions of domestic violence and sexual assault (24 January 2019). See related tweet here.

‘Understanding domestic abusers’ (undated) from the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. See “responsive violence”. Sure women are violent but only in order to “attempt to forestall attack, defend self and others, or control the situation

Feminists are the new mafia (24 January 2017) Video

many of he crimes [women] fall victim to are the result of broadened definitions of things like rape & DV

More than one in three victims of domestic abuse are now men (10 December 2016) UK. Refer comments by Polly Neate

The Future of Domestic Violence Prevention (1 November 2016)

Vera Baird has now posted a second sexist hate poster on her police force’s Facebook page (26 December 2015) UK

Domestic Violence is not on the rise (16 December 2015)

New domestic abuse law on controlling behaviour unveiled (18 December 2014)

A flood of DV insanity and doublespeak (4 December 2014)

Bullying husbands who shout at their wives could be found guilty of domestic abuse under new crackdown (24 November 2014)

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/27/domestic-violence-defined-supreme-court

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14vymr/disabusing_the_definition_of_domestic_abuse_how/

The case of sexual assault: Feminists are active on at least two fronts here to build on, or at least to maintain, the current status quo:

1. With regards to the sexual assault of women they are continually seeking to stretch the boundaries of what constitutes sexual assault in order to artificially ramp up the perceived incidence of this crime in the face of declining perpetration. Google on “stare rape” as an example of how ridiculous their assertions can be.

rapes_down

rape_stats

2. With regards to the sexual assault of men, feminists are resisting the efforts of men’s rights activists to ensure that official statistics include the many men/boys raped in jail (by both men and women) and to ensure that male rape statistics include incidents of acts currently designated as ‘forced envelopment’ or ‘made to penetrate’ rather than as rape. They do so, at least in part, because they know that if rape was defined as all ‘forced/unwanted intimate sexual activity’, then there would be gender parity. Again, to preserve the image of female victimhood, feminists must ensure that the definition of rape remains limited to sexual activity involving ‘forced penetration’ (i.e. excluding ‘forced envelopment’ or ‘made to penetrate’).

Another relevant aspect of this debate is that many feminists simply don’t recognise that men can be raped, it being their view that ‘men always want it’. Some women also incorrectly believe that the very fact that a man has an erection (necessary for vaginal penetration) is proof of his consent.

Scroll down to see the definition of ‘sexual violence’ on this page. It includes  “withholding sex and affection” yet how many times have I read in feminist web sites that men are never “entitled” to sex from their partner? Double-standard much?

Mary P. Koss considers it “inappropriate” to consider men who have been raped by women as rape victims, and prefers to call it “unwanted contact” instead. See related reddit discussion thread here (27 December 2015) USA

marykoss

FBI: Violent crime drops, reaches 1970’s level (10 November 2014)

Erasing male rape victims (15 September 2014)

More at University of Michigan: Withholding sex, Discounting feelings are ‘Sexual Violence’ (25 September 2014)

Do the math: rape stats don’t add up (26 September 2014)

The CDC’s rape numbers are misleading (17 September 2014)

The CDC updated its sexual violence figures – still does not include “made to penetrate” in its definition (5 September 2014)

NISVS 2011 released – Increased male victimisation (9 September 2014)

40% of rapists are women (19 October 2013)

How official rape statistics are distorted and inflated, by Angry Harry (August 2014)

See http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=cdc+definition+rape&restrict_sr=on which includes threads such as:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/225npz/cdc_is_caught_in_a_lie/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1l11h4/this_constitutes_for_feminist_logic whichal_refutation/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1xcrov/attempted_rape_rape_but_only_if_a_girl_is_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/271wqo/in_2010_half_of_all_sexual_violence_victims_were/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1btu0n/cdcs_response_to_whether_they_will_categorize/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27ubzy/upon_closer_examination_strange_data_emerges_from/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29s2ki/in_uk_law_female_rape_does_not_exist_its_a/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/legitimate-rape-advocacy-and-censorship/ (24 March 2013)

Child custody: As detailed in John Hirst’s groundbreaking 2005 Quarterly Essay, Kangaroo Court: Family Law in Australia, the legal tactic employed was to make false accusations of child sexual assault against the father. Based on unproven allegations of abuse, the Family Court would decide that a child could be at risk of harm and withdraw the father’s limited access visits.

The situation for fathers subsequently improved due to family law reforms introduced by the Howard Government. Women’s groups, with the help of sympathetic lawyers and academics, then began lobbying the subsequent (labor) government to water down the earlier reforms. They complained that women and children were being forced to have contact with violent and abusive fathers. At least six reviews were commissioned to prove this “fact”, yet none of the subsequent reports contained evidence that shared parenting was exposing women and children to harm.

“The Gillard government has got around this by deciding to redefine family violence. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 has expanded the definition to include psychological harm, financial abuse and other threatening behaviour that controls, coerces or causes fear. Significantly, the government has ruled out requiring that fear of family violence be “reasonable”.

Based on past experience in the Family Court, the expanded definition will create a new and open-ended legal means by which good fathers are banished from the lives of their children. There also no longer will be any penalty (no cost orders) for knowingly making false allegations, and the friendly parent provisions, requiring parents to be supportive of each other’s role in their children’s lives, will be substantially diminished.” (Source)

The case of workplace harassment

See ‘A Man Is Out Of A Job (And Much More) Over This Innocuous Crap‘ by Amy Alkon (16 February 2015)

References that further demonstrate the above points can also be found in the my blog posts on the relevant topics (links provided below), and when I get a moment I will extract them and add them into this post.

Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men?

On sexual assault and unwanted sex and On the feminist myth of ‘rape culture’

Academic paper on gender equality and gender hostility

Whilst this academic paper, entitled Gender equality and gender hostility, dates back to mid-2006, I just came across it today and thought it warranted a mention here.

The paper describes the results of an international survey of university students. Overall it found that there was a higher level of hostility towards men (HTM) by women than hostility towards women (HTW) by men. This was rationalised from a feminist perspective (for e.g. womens hostility was simply a reaction against hostility by men or reacting against patriarchal subordination, etc). There were however some interesting findings such as:

Yodanis and Straus (1996) found no correlation between men’s HTW and assault of a female partner but did find a positive correlation between women’s HTM and their assault of a male partner. That is, the higher the women’s HTM, the more physical assaults against a male partner reported. (p5)

More females (59%) than males (49.1%) agreed or strongly agreed with at least one item in the gender hostility scale. Thus, close to two-thirds of the women and approximately half of the men in the sample expressed some degree of gender hostility. Examination of more extreme scores reveals that 7.2% of females and 5.0% of males agreed or strongly agreed with four or five items, indicating that a noteworthy minority of participants reported a high level of gender hostility, with the percentage for women somewhat higher than for men. (p 16/17)

An increasing amount of research has found high rates of both physical aggression by women against male partners (Dutton and Straus 2005; Fiebert and Gonzalez 1997; Fiebert 2004; Straus 1999, 2005) and sexual aggression by women (Dutton and Straus 2005; Fiebert and Tucci 1998; Fiebert 2000). Research indicates that these women possess traits similar to men who are physically and sexually aggressive (Capaldi and Gorman-Smith 2003; Medeiros and Straus 2006; Moffitt et al. 2001). Prevention and treatment efforts need to be developed to address the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of these women, including HTM (Medeiros and Straus 2006; Smithey and Straus 2004). (p26)

Importantly the paper stated that further study was needed to tease out the different causes of hostility between men and women.

There is also a place for more direct efforts to reduce gender hostility, especially as part of sexual assault and partner violence prevention. This will take considerably more information about the nuances of gender hostility than is now available because it appears that the problems women and men have with the other sex are not identical. If so, intervention efforts should target these yet-to-be identified sex-specific aspects of gender hostility. Another complication is that individuals who possess hostile attitudes about the other sex are not likely to be purely hostile. In a sample of females and males from 19 nations, Glick et al. (2000) found that participants reported both hostile and benevolent stereotypes and prejudices toward the other sex.

This will not be an easy task because we know little about the ways in which women evaluate men (Glick and Fiske 1999). Although more is known about men’s attitudes toward women, it is important that researchers learn more about women’s attitudes regarding those who are their “strongest foes and most intimate partners” (Glick and Fiske 1999, p. 534). This can help identify gender-specific interventions that are probably needed.

An increasing amount of research has found high rates of both physical aggression by women against male partners (Dutton and Straus 2005; Fiebert and Gonzalez 1997; Fiebert 2004; Straus 1999, 2005) and sexual aggression by women (Dutton and Straus 2005; Fiebert and Tucci 1998; Fiebert 2000). Research indicates that these women possess traits similar to men who are physically and sexually aggressive (Capaldi and Gorman-Smith 2003; Medeiros and Straus 2006; Moffitt et al. 2001). Prevention and treatment efforts need to be developed to address the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of these women, including HTM (Medeiros and Straus 2006; Smithey and Straus 2004).

The 7.2% of females and 5% of the males who agreed with four or five of the five gender hostility items may be students who are more likely to sexually and physically aggress against dating partners and others. These extremely hostile cases are those most in need of help.

Feminist efforts to shut down, disrupt and/or denigrate the 2014 Conference on Mens Issues

I was initially going to address this issue within my existing post on feminist censorship of non-feminist viewpoints, but the first International conference on Men’s Issues grew in significance such that it well and truly warranted its own blog post. The conference concluded, happily without incident, on 28 June 2014. Here is an overview of the conference which contains links to several presentations, and here are further links to other papers presented at the conference.

Feminist activism designed to stop the conference being held was clearly unsuccessful – this included street marches, online petitions and direct approaches to relevant authorities, and even anonymous threats of violence. These threats ultimately led to the conference being relocated to another venue under unusual circumstances as is described in this article.

Here is a Youtube video that was made to support a fund-raising drive needed to cover additional costs resulting from threats made to the venue hotel.

Protest Saturday: Misogynistic conference in Detroit (6 June 2014) Remarkably inaccurate and biased article by feminist blogger and here is the comment contributed by an MRA which will never be published (as is common practice with feminist web pages)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/

http://judgybitch.com/2014/05/29/oh-look-trigger-happy-protesters-are-planning-to-shut-down-the-detroit-conference-promising-things-could-get-ugly/

Controversial mens rights conference sparks backlash (29 May 2014)

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/letter-to-emma-howland-bolton-regarding-threats-of-violence-and-death-by-protesters-under-her-organization-mason-elementary/

Feminist blog post outlining her reasons for wanting the conference cancelled

Mens rights misrepresented – A letter to the Editor (10 June 2014)

Controversial men’s rights conference canceled at Double Tree in downtown Detroit (11 June 2014) There were 658 comments when I read the article – and some good ones amongst them too.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/28u8v3/just_lol_among_their_efforts_to_shut_down_avfm/ (reddit discussion thread with link to a pro-feminist web site discussing the conference)

Reddit discussion about feminist change in tactics in relation to the conference … Giving the threat of violence as a reason to stay away is absurd – ALL of the intimidation that has occurred at prior MRA events has been carried out by feminists.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-censorship/what-those-who-oppose-our-conference-look-like/ (refer in particular to readers comments)

Well, as it transpired, thankfully there were no feminist protesters present at the Conference and it was by all accounts a peaceful and productive event.

Media coverage of the conference

Media coverage of the conference covered a spectrum from supportive and thoughtful to shallow, dismissive and side-tracking. Many of the articles attracted many hundreds of readers comments, hence even the articles with a strong anti-MRA bias provided a useful function of encouraging debate.

Here are some of the more negative articles:

http://blogs.metrotimes.com/news-blawg/molested-mens-rights-conference/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/29/sparsely-attended-mens-rights-soiree-arrives-at-source-of-their-problems-hint-its-women/

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/06/28/the-first-international-conference-on-mens-issues-day-1/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-goldwag/mens-issues-conference_b_5543418.html by feminist bigot Arthur Goldwag … but the comments by readers are worthy of review. A rebuttal of Goldwag’s Huffington Post article can be seen here

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mens-rights-conference-feminism

http://www.msnbc.com/now-with-alex-wagner/watch/an-international-conference-on-men-s-rights–296068675959

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29w5tq/should_i_be_concerned_some_recent_media_attention/

Men’s rights activists, gathering to discuss all the ways society has done them wrong by Monica Hesse (30 June 2014) With more than 1300 comments as of 3 July 2014

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/07/70393/mra-mens-rights-conference?unique_id=entry_70393#comment-1464508103 by Kelsey Miller (1 July 2014) This blog post has already attracted 900 comments as of 3 July – and I would recommend having a look at these as many good points are being raised therein.

What I learned as a woman at a Men’s Rights Conference by Jessica Roy (2 July 2014) *You can read a rebuttal of Roy’s article here*

As you will see, in each of the above cases, large numbers of men and women have posted comments pointing out the negativity, bias and hypocrisy shown by the authors. Indeed there are some very thoughtful and insightful comments amongst these – recommended reading!

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/11/mens_rights_groups_sad_reality_behind_the_doors_of_a_depressing_confab/

http://fusion.net/culture/story/mens-rights-activists-fight-feminist-oppressors-831312 (1 July 2014)

https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/07/04/the-insane-things-said-at-the-1st-annual-mens-rights-conference/ (4 July 2014)

Why ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ Are the Worst People to Advocate for Men’s Rights (10 July 2014)

Here are some of the more positive articles:

A kinder, gentler turn to the gender wars‘ (29 June 2014)

What’s next for the gender wars‘ (3 July 2014)

The Secret Agenda of the Men’s Rights Movement Exposed (6 July 2014)

NCFM Vice President responds to criticism about MRA’s and the AVfM conference in Detroit (25 July 2014) See http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/ncfm-vice-president-responds-to-criticism-about-mras-and-the-avfm-conference-in-detroit/

… plus a positive blog post at http://blog.studiobrule.com/2014/06/international-conference-on-mens-issues.html

And some further observations from an MHRA about the nature of media coverage the event attracted

Conference reflections: A young woman becomes an MRA‘ (23 July 2014)

Finally, ‘Is this the best they can do?” (25 February 2015)

Men, women and feminists – Their differing attitudes to marriage & parenthood

I saw two items about parenthood yesterday that got me thinking about a number of the issues I have written about in this blog.

The first item I saw was an article in The Courier Mail, entitled ‘Go forth and procreate sooner’ by Belinda Seeney (“We need to support women aiming to have babies earlier to beat age-related infertility”). The second was an ABC TV documentary called ‘Cherry’s parenting dilemmas’.

A distinguishing feature of both was the total lack of any mention of the role or significance of men in the topic under discussion. It was not that the discussion was gender-neutral – it was more like men were completely inconsequential. This is indicative of a society where the ongoing relevance or value of men in parenting (and in fact, generally) is increasingly under-valued. Another feature shared by both of these stories was the privileged western societies that formed their contextual backdrop.

Most readers would be aware of demographic trends now taking place in many western countries, including for example falling birth rates, increasing age at marriage, increasing age at becoming a parent, the rise in single person households, the rise in single parenthood, etc. I want to briefly mention a few other trends or developments that I see as relevant to this discussion.

  • Recent/current research that is increasingly showing the critical importance of having a father actively involved in raising a child, or conversely, the negative implication for the well-being of the child where a father is absent from the household
  • The Marriage Strike and the MGTOW movement, and the factors underlying both
  • Increasing influence of feminist ideology in western societies, and the consequent demonization of men, and negative discrimination towards them

Where do I see things heading ?

  • More and more women moving against feminist ideology and rediscovering the value and legitimacy of parenthood and therefore more women wishing to have children, and at an earlier age.
  • More and more women recognizing the value of having a man (or men) actively involved in the rearing of their children
  • More and more men discovering the costs and negative effects on them of parenthood and so avoiding parenthood for longer, or entirely
  • Continued or even worsening economic austerity making parenthood more and more unaffordable, particularly for single parents

So as things stand now, just as more and more western women are wanting to have more and more children, there will be less and less men willing to partner with them. This is not selfishness or immaturity on the part of the men, it is a rational response to both real and potential threats faced by them in relation to marriage and parenthood. We need to recognise and address those issues, issues such as bias against men in the family court system. If we fail to do so and the than those that will suffer most will be women and children. Yay feminism!

See also:

The Growing Cohort of Single Dads by Choice (19 August 2025)

‘If I could, I’d go back in time and choose not to have my child’ (17 March 2024)

Why Do Some Women Want To Be Victims So Bad? (11 February 2024)

Is traditional heterosexual romance sexist? (2 August 2023)

Marriage is disappearing from Britain (31 May 2023)

Feminists never shut up, by Bettina Arndt (27 April 2023)

Winner takes all, by Bettina Arndt (8 February 2023)

A Twitter thread about women allegedly preferring parenthood via the use of a sperm donor (10 January 2023) and Here’s a link to the ABC article

Link to related Twitter discussion thread – refer chart below (11 September 2022)

Image

Why It’s Never a Good Idea to Demonize The Consumer (13 September 2022)

‘Happy wife, happy life’ is wrong. Women are not relationship ‘barometers,’ study finds (10 August 2022)

Conservatives Waffle on Abortion and Women’s Accountability (3 July 2022) by Janice Fiamengo

Famous Pastor discovers the real reason for the decline in marriage rate (17 June 2022)

TikToker reveals ‘scary’ reason young women don’t want kids (17 May 2022)

Couple who asked for female embryo sues fertility clinic over baby boy (28 March 2022) USA. These gender-bigots don’t deserve to have a child – of any gender.

Woman puts baby up for adoption after sperm donor lied about ethnicity and education (14 January 2022)

‘They curse. A lot’: Parent-of-eight slammed for letting kids swear (8 January 2022) Curious how the term ‘single mum’ isn’t mentioned once in this article.

The black pill for women, by Rollo Tomassi (November 2021) Video

High income men have high value as long-term mates in the U.S.: personal income and the probability of marriage, divorce, and childbearing in the U.S. – ScienceDirect (September 2021)

Women Share Pictures Of Before And AFTER Meeting Their Partners, They’re STARK Comparisons – YouTube (7 July 2021) Video

Report no. 4: Impacts of COVID-19 on pregnancy and fertility intentions (July 2021)

The Mating Strategies of Earthlings, with Sam Harris and Prof David Buss (26 June, 2021) Video

When men behave badly – A review (30 April 2021) Fascinating paper

Woke women are killing marriage and dating (10 November 2020)

Feminism has destroyed everything desirable about women (13 September 2020) This video discusses, in particular, real & imagined social attitudes towards women who choose to be childless

My generation is so wrecked (14 August 2020)

Tomi Lahren’s anti-men screed demonstrates why dating is dead (10 August 2020)

Whither hypergamy? (29 January 2020)

4 feminist lies that are making women miserable, by Suzanne Venker (13 November 2019)

Researchers Blame Marriage Rate Decline On A “Lack Of Economically-Attractive Men” (7 September 2019)

Young women are turning their back on sharing wealth with their partner, survey reveals (22 July 2019) UK

Choosing not to have children? For women it’s empowering, but for men it’s juvenile (18 January 2019)

CNN Advocates Female Infidelity As Best Way For Women To “Endure” Modern Marriage (6 October 2017)

Laurie Penny: Why women are better off single (14 September 2017)

Clementine Ford: Why most grand romantic gestures are anything but romantic (12 September 2017)

Where the Good Men Have Gone and How to Get Them Back, by Suzanne Venker (22 May 2017)

‘There’s been a seismic social shift’: Why it’s now MEN who say they’ve been destroyed by divorce – while their wives are quick to bounce back (18 May 2017) UK

Nika Fate-Dixon: Are Some Millennials Rethinking the Gender Revolution? Long-Range Trends in Views of Non-Traditional Roles for Women (30 March 2017)

The day I put my wife in her place (20 March 2017)

Why are married women leaving their men? (14 April 2016)

Want to bump the birth rate in the West? Pay men (15  August 2016)

Cuckold Your Husband: The Raw Marriage Deal For Men (27 May 2016) A rebuttal to the article below

Women Are Now Cheating As Much As Men, But With Fewer Consequences (26 May 2016)

Why can’t he find men to marry the women he is teaching to have contempt for men? (11 May 2016)

Fewer women are seeking divorce as men behave less badly: Number of wives seeking split drops by half since the mid 1980s (27 December 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Feminist in ‘open marriage’ leaves husband for another man (17 November 2015) Included here mainly for the reader’s comments in the linked article

Are today’s women too picky for their own good? (10 November 2015) UK

Why you can’t find a man: Hypergamy Floats (12 September 2015) Video by Paul Proteus

She’s keeping her vow, by Dalrock (5 September 2015)

Post-divorce reality (11 August 2015)

“You’re just intimidated by accomplished women!” (10 July 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Women’s Greatest Problem: The Myth of the Submissive Alpha Male (25 June 2015)

Petty things I do to get back at my husband (3 June 2015) Like spitting in his coffee? Ewww. As detailed in one of hundreds of reader’s comments

Single Motherhood, in Decline Over All, Rises for Women 35 and Older (8 May 2015)

How The Search For Love Fuels China’s Housing Bubble (4 May 2015)

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

Spinster: how feminists celebrate being a selfish witch (24 April 2015)

When it comes to raising my child, a husband would be excess baggage (9 April 2015)

Ready for the marriage apocalypse? (8 April 2015)

How much should a husband share with his wife?, by Dalrock (6 March 2015)

Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man (1 April 2015)

Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married (12 February 2015) Author pushes the standard line that men aren’t marrying because they are immature. More than 2,000 readers put her on the right track

How marriage would work in a free society (22 February 2015)

MythBusters (TV show) asks whether money makes men more attractive (8 September 2014)

I don’t want children but worry my husband is getting broody (19 May 2013) If consent to sex is given under false pretences is now considered to be rape, then surely the situation described in this article is fraud?

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

Or maybe it’s you (2 February 2015)

Marriage rates plummet – Projection of never-married rates to 2017 (12 August 2013)

Where Have All the Good Men Gone?: Gender Differences in Marriageability (8 October 2014)

Why women are rejecting “perfect” men (18 September 2014)

More grim news for carousellers hoping to jump at the last minute (24 November 2012) from Dalrock’s blog

All the lonely feminist spinsters (14 October 2011)

What women really want – money: Research finds women look for well-paid job first in partner (11 April 2011)

The consequences of single motherhood (19 December 2001)

It might also be worth reading this article about gynocentrism to get further understanding of the ‘big picture’ that surrounds and underpins the above-mentioned issues.

Image

Image

Image