Blog posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hollywood men silent over Weinstein allegations as women speak out (11 October 2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And just to show everyone who’s wearing the pants in this debate, the usual voices piped up with the ‘all men are responsible’ line:

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

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

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

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

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

As is usually the case, any rebuttal was muted and limited to male-positive journalists like Martin Daubney:

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

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

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

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

Harvey Weinstein and Feminism (19 October 2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In closing, Cathy Young has written an excellent article that touches on a number of the issues mentioned above. And here is Paul Elam’s take on this topic from a Red Pill perspective.

Other posts in this blog related to this topic include:

Don’t look at me! No wait. Look at me!
Girls showing their bits = empowerment? patriarchal exploitation? self-indulgence? other?
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
On Gender Traitors, White Knights and Manginas

On housework and ’emotional labour’

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

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

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

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

Related references:

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

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

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

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

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

The two articles below argue the exact reverse of the usual feminist assertions:

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

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

On taxation and the ‘Female Economy’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A selection of related articles/papers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Female Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

On sugar-daddies, sugar-mummies and sugar-babies

You may well have noticed an abundance of articles in the mainstream media about personal commercial arrangements known as a sugar-daddy relationship. Indeed some media outlets such as news.com.au seem to run stories on this subject every couple of weeks (see recent examples here and here).

Previously I included related discussion/references within my blog posts on ‘Privilege, Respect and Entitlement‘ and/or on ‘Prostitution‘.

Today however I was prompted to create a post solely on this topic after reading a feminist journalist’s interpretation of the sugar-daddy phenomenon:

Why is a ‘sugar daddy’ funded education being sold as empowering to women?

Kasey Edwards doesn’t think that sugar-daddy arrangements are a bad idea because they are, you know, wrong. It’s not because they involve women debasing themselves via voluntarily entering into a parasite/host relationship. And it’s not because these women aren’t walking out into the world standing on their own two, empowered, feet.

No, such arrangements are a bad idea because the women involved might be held in some way (shudder) accountable if exposed. It was suggested that former sugar-daddies would blackmail their babies as “there’s seemingly no downside for powerful men who have sexual arrangements with less powerful women“. (Gee, I bet there would be more than a few ‘powerful’ men who would disagree with that assessment of where most of the risk lies)

The cost of exposure could be either tangible (reduced employment opportunity), or more intangible (slut-shaming). Of course, both of these forms of chastisement might be imposed by other women – especially in the latter case.

Oh, and sugar-baby arrangements are also a bad idea because Kasey sees them as a “cynical abuse of male power“.

Needless to say, no mention was made of the fact that wealthy women procure men/boys in a similar manner. Which would kind of make it more of a wealth thing, rather than a gender thing.

Nevertheless, the likely feminist defence there would be that that doesn’t count, a ‘rare aberration’ yada yada, borne from ‘internalised misogyny’ yada yada, and being a ‘justifiable push-back against male oppression’ yada yada.

What follows now is a selection of articles and perspectives on this topic. There are also a couple of sources dealing with a somewhat related practice known as ‘rinsing‘.

Growing Trend Of Older Women Becoming ‘Sugar Mamas’ For Young Migrants (28 July 2017)

Inside the life of a feminist sugar baby, by Roisin Lanigan  (21 March 2017)

Sugar Babies: 100,000 Aussie students have signed up to find a sugar daddy (2 February 2017) It’s ironic that pro-feminist news.com.au frequently runs articles on sugar-babies, sending a poor message to young men and women alike. Still, as long as news.com.au gets lots of clicks catering to vicarious thrills, it’s all good right?

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

Rise of the sugar mummies: Led by a host of celebrities, more and more older women are dating younger men (25 January 2017)

Former Beauty Queen Lives A Life Of Luxury By ‘Working’ As A Sugar Baby (6 January 2017)

“Men are supposed to be caregivers and take care of women”

Jilted lover, 42, sues her 86-year-old ‘sugar daddy’ for $1.5M claiming that he said he would provide for her ‘for the rest of her life’. Buhl has moved on to another girlfriend, Zahradnikova claims she’s still owed $1.5million in unpaid wages. How low can you go! Reddit mens rights discussion thread and linked article

Lavish lifestyle of sugar baby Simone Toon (4 November 2016)

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

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

‘You don’t have to give him anything’: Inside the life of a $75,000-a-year sugar baby (1 February 2016) Australia

Monica Lynn travelled the world for free by getting her dates to pay for it (2 January 2016)

The art of ‘rinsing’ landed these sisters $160,000 worth of gifts (27 November 2015)

Sugar Babies: Controversial trend taking off online (21 July 2015) Mainstream media at it again: Content to promote parasitism/prostitution as a legitimate lifestyle choice #racetothebottom

Where the sugar babies are (15 January 2015)

Sex, lies and ‘rinsing’ guys – Youtube video – Just don’t call them prostitutes

How to date older rich men for cash and prizes, avoid having sex with them and still imagine YOU are the exploited victim (18 December 2013)

 

 

 

 

 

The Duluth Model: The theoretical basis for the feminist approach to domestic violence

The cornerstone of the feminist approach to domestic violence is known as the ‘Duluth Model’, which is often illustrated as follows:

The Duluth Model is “based in feminist theory positing that domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners”. (Source)

It is my position, and I am certainly not alone in this regard, that applying this theoretical framework to most (let alone all) incidents of domestic violence is highly misleading and inappropriate.

Further, if gender inequality is the most significant precursor in relation to domestic violence, then:

Why is the incidence of domestic violence greater in lesbian couple than in heterosexual couples?

How might one explain the already high and growing levels of female-perpetrated violence generally?

How might one explain the significant geographical variations in the incidence of domestic violence? The chart below, for example, looks at variations in the incidence of DV in the Australian state of New South Wales.

highrateDVareas

Why does there exist a very considerable number of male victims of domestic violence?

How might one explain the relatively high levels of child abuse and neglect involving single mothers?

Why is the level of domestic violence so high in countries like Sweden that, even feminists would agree, have a higher than average level of gender equality?

These categories or situations of domestic violence are not the inconsequential anomalies that many propose them to be. On the contrary, they constitute very large and substantial pieces of the domestic violence jigsaw.

In an intimate partnership between two people of different genders, an unequal balance of power can be a factor contributing to DV. But what feminists refuse to concede is that the partner asserting most power need not be male, and often isn’t.

The Duluth Model and its chief proponents are discussed at length in this illuminating series of email exchanges (mirror here).

“… the Duluth model essentially views all female transgressions as being self-defensive in nature (even against children!) and can be attributed either to previous victimization by a male or to an allegedly oppressive “patriarchy” (Dutton and Corvo, 2007)”

I would urge you to take a moment now to read Jason Dale’s detailed and insightful commentary.

See also:

Setting the record straight on Duluth (6 February 2017)

Taking an in-depth look into domestic violence research – The Duluth Model (6 September 2015)

The Gender Paradigm In Domestic Violence: Research And Theory (2005) by Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls

 

Apparently there’s not enough “educated” men nowadays

Until recently articles about women having trouble finding/securing dating or marriage partners were often quoted as querying “Where have all the good men gone?“. I talk about this in another post called ‘MGTOW and the Marriage Strike‘.

The rationale is that men are deficient in that they are failing in their responsibilities (to women) through their immaturity and/or by simply not trying hard enough to please. There is never a suggestion of any shortcomings on the part of women.

I’ve noticed we seem to be transitioning to a new meme, similar yet different to the last. In this one men are still deficient – they are now said to be playing video games instead of doing the work or study necessary to improve their educational/financial position.

We are told that educated women are complaining because, apparently, there are not enough “educated” men to partner with. Here’s an example of an article on this theme (with a response from an MRA here). As a consequence, these privileged women say, they must freeze their eggs and/or become solo parents by way of artificial insemination, etc.

Of course it would make sense to delve deeper into why men are staying home playing video games and/or are becoming increasingly under-represented in universities, but the debate stalls at the shaming stage. Because … still no suggestion of any shortcomings or blame on the part of women.

I saw this program about solo parenthood on TV the other night. Interesting, though very much gynocentric in terms of the issues explored/presented. I saw women who had quite negative attitudes towards men and/or who freely admitted that they were not prepared to compromise in terms of any aspect of potential traditional pairings. On the other hand they were most willing to compromise their independent/empowered woman status when it came to having others around them support and/or subsidise their lifestyle choice.

The perspective of straight men and their attitudes and experiences was not addressed. Sperm donors who chose not to establish/maintain contact with their offspring were presented as insensitive cads. No hint was provided as to what other factors that might have contributed to their behaviour, for e.g. the possibility of being lumbered with eighteen years of child support payments.

Then I read firstly this article, then another, and another, these being just a few examples of a spate of pieces on this theme. As is often the case, there were some quite illuminating reader’s comments following each, including this offering:

“Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

These are genuine threat points for men in the modern world that didn’t exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that’s over now.

So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.

And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.

But you do not need to read ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness’ to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one – not in a group – to get the REAL story. The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don’t give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell, ANY decent man, went.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women.

The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.

And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all – indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.

The time has come to reap the harvest of feminism, and for women the fruit will be bitterest of all.”

And here is further evidence of the feminist hive-mind in action with another series of almost identical articles on a related theme – young men allegedly addicted to video games :

Unemployed and don’t care: why young men aren’t working (1 April 2017) A sexist hit-piece in a professional journal of all places. The author wilfully confuses cause & effect when discussing unemployment amongst young men. See reader’s comments including:

“placing the blame of men not working on video games seems like such a stretch of the imagination as to be unbelievable”

The curious political effect of men losing their breadwinner role, by Jena McGregor (24 April 2017)

Why Some Men Don’t Work: Video Games Have Gotten Really Good‘ (3 July 2017)

Will Darwinism kill Feminism? (7 July 2017) A great offering on the issue from Martin Daubney

We’re losing a whole generation of young men to video games‘ (8 July 2017)

Link between young men spending more time gaming and less working (13 July 2017)

It’s not just young men — everyone’s playing a lot more video games (11 July 2017) Oh gee, someone finally provided corresponding stats for women

No eligible men (10 July 2017) This video kind of sums it all up

See also:

The second half of this Sargon of Akkad video deals with the ‘lack of educated men’ issue (October 2017)

‘Marrying up’ is now easier for men, improves their economic well-being, study finds (28 August 2017) I think they really mean ‘marrying up should now be easier for men’. And again, if the genders were reversed, there would certainly not be the same meek acceptance of the women being failed by the education system.

College-Educated Women Can’t Find Good Men – What’s to blame? (3 February 2016)

The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women, by David M Buss (January 2016) USA. An article written by a male academic, but from a wholly gynocentric perspective.

These women can’t find enough marriageable men (24 September 2015) and related reddit discussion thread here

Rich educated women cannot find husbands and it’s all your fault,  by Sargon of Akkad (10 May 2015) Video

Where are all the smart men? (3 May 2015) New Zealand with related reddit mensrights discussion threads here and here. A separate, and even more ignorant editorial here concludes with “The failure of men to foot it with them educationally in equal numbers is no reason to change the education system or promote men undeservedly. The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.”

Some other related posts within this blog:

On boys and education
Men & women and their attitudes to marriage and parenthood
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us
We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?

The Australian Institute of Family Studies – another taxpayer-funded feminist mouthpiece

“The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) is a Melbourne-based  Australian Government statutory agency established in 1980 under the Family Law Act 1975.

The Institute has a proud record of high-quality, responsive and impartial research into the wellbeing of Australian families. Our vision is to make a positive contribution to the wellbeing of Australian families by advancing understanding of the factors affecting Australian families and communicating findings to policy makers, service providers and the broader community.

The Institute operates within the portfolio of the Department of Social Services (DSS) and is responsible to the Minister for Social Services. The Institute has ongoing relationships with various other government agencies, policy makers and the community sector. Staff at the Institute are employed under the Public Service Act 1999.” (Source)

The latest annual report for the AIFS tells us that it burnt through almost eighteen million taxpayer dollars in financial year 2015/16, and that as at 30 June 2016, there were 75 staff (3/4 of whom were female).

Regrettably, the Institute appears to have a strongly feminist orientation and corresponding anti-male bias.

In June 2017 the AIFS issued a publication entitled ‘Fathers who use violence‘. And no, for reasons that are not acknowledged, there is no corresponding document regarding abusive mothers. Of course the document should have been entitled ‘Parents who use violence‘, but apparently that would have constituted a little too much gender equality for those in the driver’s seat.

Another indicator of the extent of feminist bias in the AIFS is the inclusion within their web site of contributions by Michael Flood (example) who holds views highly antagonistic towards the men’s rights movement. In this example it would have been far more appropriate for Dr. Flood’s view to be presented with a counter-argument provided by someone from the men’s rights movement, but clearly that concept didn’t make it past the powers-that-be (if indeed it was even considered at all). More on Dr. Flood and his tortured relationship with the men’s rights movement hereherehere and here.

Yet more gender bias on display in this report on female sex offending by Senior Research Officer Mary Stathopoulos. Reddit poster ‘DougDante‘ comments thus:

“The bias was clear in the introduction. “the debate”, which is really about providing boys and men equal access to services for victims of domestic and sexual violence, constructed as if doing so would imply that police must be forced to waste resources trying to identify equal numbers of victims and perps of each gender, “is dangerous”.

Denying boy and man victims services and silencing them – not dangerous.

The survey also highlighted shocking disparities in New Zealand where only 0.6% of convictions were against women offenders, more than 5 times lower than other nations. Are women there more moral, or is that a female rapist’s paradise?

Perhaps I missed it, but the authors did not recognize that shocking number a signal of a systematic rape culture that ignores women’s sex crimes, and used it to justify ignoring boy and man victims.

Excuses are often made for female abusers such as in the report when they stated, “most striking feature is a history of previous victimisation”, but male abusers have the same histories!

This is why it’s important that no one be allowed to abuse any child or adult.”

Why is it so very hard for MSM to allow objective airing of men’s issues? The example of Triple J Hack’s ‘debate’

This evening ABC2/Triple J Hack are to broadcast what is billed as a debate on the topic of ‘Is Male Privilege Bullshit‘. In fact it will most likely be nothing more than yet another bigoted feminist soliloquy.

They have most likely scheduled this program due to the considerable amount of recent publicity concerning the screening of the Red Pill movie, and the feminist lobby’s desperate need to try to claw back some credibility.

For background or updates readers can peruse the Twitter streams for @ABC2, @TripleJHack @TomTilley and/or the corresponding Facebook pages.

ABC2 have invited the likes of Clementine Ford and Nakkiah Lui to join the panel. Of course, if you want to have a fair and balanced discussion you invite misandrists onto the panel. If worst comes to worst then the rest of the sisterhood can claim ‘not all feminists are like that‘, then rinse and repeat.

While Karen Straughan (‘GirlWritesWhat’) features in a promo video, sadly she will not be participating on the discussion panel. Cassie Jaye (‘Red Pill’) was to be interviewed (via satellite) during the show but pulled out stating:

“I already see so many warning signs of inherent bias based on the program’s marketing … I don’t see what I can gain by being a part of this when it’s clear that the show is going to give selective and limited airtime to certain guests over others.” (Source)

Additionally, yesterday ABC2 published this biased and misleading article about domestic violence (‘DV’). The focus of the article is an assertion that the Australian finding that one in three victims of domestic violence are male, is false. This is not the first time that Australian feminists have attacked this statistic.

The article quotes well-known anti-men’s rights advocates Michael Flood and Michael Salter, and includes various factual errors as well as misrepresentations of the MRA perspective on the issue of DV.

Here is a rebuttal of that article prepared by Greg Andresen of the One in Three organisation:

“I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into correcting the following factual errors from your article “What about men?: Challenging the MRA claim of a domestic violence conspiracy”:

  1. The article claims, “In the 2012 PSS, about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner in the last 12 months. The ABS warns the estimate has a standard error of 25-50 per cent (meaning the real figure could be 50 per cent higher or lower) and “should be used with caution”. If we look at experiences of domestic violence over a longer period, we find the proportion of male victims sharply falls.” The 2012 PSS also found that about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner since the age of 15. There was no standard error. This is the same proportion, not a “sharp fall”.
  2. It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three… Emergency departments: Two-thirds of patients presenting for family violence reasons were female.” This is exactly one in three, not a fall.
  3. It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three. Victoria’s 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence compared several sources…”. The Royal Commission into Family Violence found (I quote), “Over the five years from July 2009, the proportion of male victims has increased and in 2013-14 male victims made up 31% (n=5,052) of total victims of family violence”. That’s pretty close to one in three.
  4. Dr Salter claims, “For men experiencing violence from a female partner, it’s primarily self defensive or it’s expressive in terms of a push or a slap” without citing any research to support his claim.
  5. It claims, “Some MRAs argue the one in three figure actually underestimates the number of male victims of domestic violence, because men are either too ashamed, too stoic, or too chivalrous to report being hit by their female partner… But apart from these anecdotal reports, there’s no other evidence to back up this claim, and no easy way of measuring this potential statistical bias.” The 2012 PSS found that men who have experienced partner violence are 2 to 3 times more likely than women to have never told anybody about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; twice as likely as women to have never sought advice or support about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; up to 40% more likely than women to have not contacted police about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; and half as likely as women to have had a restraining order issued against the perpetrator of previous partner violence. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.
  6. Michael Brandenburg said, “Certainly there’s a cohort of men who experience family violence… In our experience a significant number of those experience violence not by intimate partners, but from other family members.” The 2012 PSS found the vast majority of partner and dating violence committed against men is perpetrated by females (94%). Only 6% occurs in relationships with a male perpetrator. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.”

The Australian mainstream media have apparently learnt nothing from the marked backlash against the rude and biased treatment of film director Cassie Jaye on The Project and Sunrise TV programs.

It is so incredibly frustrating that they are unable to address men’s issues in a fair and objective manner, and simply provide the public with the facts and different opinions and let them form their own views.

The debate tonight is designed to try to inflict maximum damage on the men’s rights movement. It will only dig the media an even deeper hole in terms of their credibility in the eyes of the community. Instead of bringing people together and fostering understanding and consensus, media stunts like this simply set the scene for more lobbing of grenades from trench to trench.

Media coverage after the event:

Hack critique Pt. 2, by Gary Orsum (22 June 2017) Video

Hack Live: What happened when we debated male privilege (21 June 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread

Bettina Arndt tells why Cassie Jaye ditched Hack Live (20 June 2017) Video

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Privilege, respect and entitlement

Female Privilege Check-list

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media

“How they conduct themselves in public”

I still can’t quite believe this <chuckle>

I had a brief exchange with some characters on Twitter today, an extract from which is shown above.

She owned me folks, she owned me good. With the public conduct of feminists being as exemplary as it is, she had me over a barrel. Oh wait

That’s right, I’m kidding. Because as everyone knows, the public conduct of feminists is often atrocious. Thankfully the public conduct of MRA is far more muted and benign. More civilised you might say. And long may it remain that way.

Has an angry group of MRA shouted down a feminist speaker? pulled fire alarms? blockaded feminist events and shouted obscenities at attendees? Seriously, please send me links to videos if you know of any such incidents.

Or perhaps she was confused between MRA and Antifa.

If any other anti-MRA folks are reading this, and they’d like to enlighten themselves, then they are invited to follow my suggestion above and/or peruse myriad examples of feminist misconduct in the following posts within this blog:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The 2017 Women’s March, Women’s Strike & other anti-Trump protests

More feminist censorship: Cancellation of the Australian premiere of The Red Pill movie