Yes it’s a bold plan but we think we can do it. We’re a cool little organisation and, I tell you, we are 100% into gender equality.
Only 10% women by 2017? Feminists would be collectively choking on their smashed avocado at this point, and reaching towards their IPhones ready to unleash a storm on social media. Well, they can relax and busy themselves attending to their cats’ litter tray instead.
That’s because the statement in this particular organisation’s web site actually specifies having 10% of the senior management team *male* by 2017. I’ve seen this objective noted in their web site for quite a while now. Three years? Clearly progress has been slow. Perhaps they’re having trouble finding men whose judgement is sufficiently impaired to sign off on media releases asserting that the gender wage gap is proof-positive of an oppressive male hegemony across corporate Australia.
The organisation I’m talking about is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The WGEA is an Australian Government statutory agency created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The Agency is charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. The relevant minister is Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, etc.
We taxpayers support WGEA to the tune of $5 million each year, and in return they tell us about stuff that’s really important to feminists like the ‘gender pay gap’. They even have a separate website in which to bang that particular drum.
There are currently no men in the senior management team at WGEA. I don’t think that there ever has been. The last annual report (refer page 100) tells us that only two out of twenty-nine staff were men (see the lovely staff pic). (Postscript September 2016: According to this article, WGEA now employ five men … break out the party pies, they achieved their quota!)
I don’t understand why they only shot for 10% men though. Because if 10% is the feminist version of equality, then that certainly changes a few things. And what’s with waiting until now (2017)? Surely if members of the current management team were real feminists they would jump at the opportunity to facilitate greater diversity at WGEA by resigning to make way for new blood. And then imagine the challenge of subsequently breaking new ground in a field dominated by men, like fishing or mining for example. But then if it’s just about the money I guess I could understand …
Now back to where I started, with the genders reversed. If it was 95% men working in this particular agency, don’t you think that the feminist lobby would scream their heads off? That it wouldn’t be on, or close to, the front page of the paper? Maybe even have its own hashtag? And that the government wouldn’t find a way to immediately address the serious gender imbalance?
Don’t bother answering. I think none of us are in any doubt about the answer to that hypothetical.
The inquiry that I am introducing in this post follows hard on the heels of another federal Senate inquiry into domestic violence. My submission to that earlier inquiry can be accessed in this blog post. There have also been several recent inquiries conducted by state governments.
The current federal inquiry is known as the Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality. It is being considered by a Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration known as the ‘References Committee’, the membership of which is listed here.
Domestic violence and gender inequality, with particular reference to:
The role of gender inequality in all spheres of life in contributing to the prevalence of domestic violence;
The role of gender stereotypes in contributing to cultural conditions which support domestic violence, including, but not limited to, messages conveyed to children and young people in:
the marketing of toys and other products,
education, and
entertainment;
The role of government initiatives at every level in addressing the underlying causes of domestic violence, including the commitments under, or related to, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; and
Any other related matters.
As can be seen, these terms of reference were tailored for a feminist audience, and perfectly embrace the feminist narrative on DV. That is, in summary, that DV = men beating on women because patriarchy.
In fact each of these earlier inquiries demonstrated a pronounced pro-feminist bias, and this has greatly curtailed the breadth of issues and potential solutions discussed. Thus whilst some useful ideas were generated, these all fell well within the comfortable confines of what feminists consider to be appropriate policy responses.
As can be seen from its title, this inquiry hones in on one particular issue in the domestic violence debate that is absolutely central to the feminist perspective. The theoretical cornerstone of this is the ‘Duluth Model’ discussed in this email exchange, this academic paper, and in various other posts in my blog.
It is my belief, and one which is shared by many others, that applying this position to most (let alone all) incidents of DV is simply wrong. Focussing on gender inequality is diverting the domestic violence debate around 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Thus all things considered, this inquiry will likely be an utter waste of time and money. So why then bother preparing a submission?
My answer? If people who hold alternative views don’t continue to publicly reject the feminist narrative, then the only voices on the public record will be those of the feminist fright-bats that populate organisations such as these. Not on my watch.
Not if we want effective solutions addressing the whole problem, rather than just more of the same costly inequitable and divisive policy failures.
The closing date for public submissions was 31 March 2016. The reporting date was nominated as being 24 August 2016, but don’t hold your breath for the last federal inquiry ran about a year overtime.
Here is a link to the list of submissions received by the Inquiry. My submission is #48, a copy of which is also available here.
Here is a link to the submission prepared by the ‘One in Three’ organisation
The fact that in many countries men are subject to mandatory national service, or at least to mandatory registration for conscription, is raised reasonably often in fora discussing men’s issues. There are a number of reasons why this topic is significant in the gender debate, particularly in terms of its historical significance.
This issue has gained some prominence in the US recently, in part due to the impending Presidential election process. A related issue is the comparative performance of women actually serving in the military, and claims that this has led to a lowering of standards.
What finally prompted me to create a post on this issue was reading the following letter to the editor of the New York Times:
“I am a woman, a mother, a lifelong feminist and against the draft for women.
Exemption from the military draft for women is an essential part of our traditional societal compact: American women risk their health and very lives in pregnancy and childbirth to produce new American citizens. American men, in times of war, risk their health and lives to defend those women and children. Women who volunteer for military service are going commendably above and beyond the call of duty.
About 13 percent of American adults over all are veterans, including 24 percent of men and 2 percent of women. Compare that with the 80 percent of American women who become mothers.
We women already make a disproportionate contribution to society. That women uniquely risk death and long-term health problems to bear society’s children is not a cultural construct or a mutable gender role: It is a biological fact.
The ancient Greek playwright Euripides got it right when he had his heroine Medea say: “Men say that we live a life free from danger at home while they fight with the spear. How wrong they are! I would rather stand three times with a shield in battle than give birth once.”
We American women have given enough. Please do not take away America’s only tangible recognition of our sacrifice.”
Within the limits of the little free time available to me I try to keep abreast of media and social media discussions concerning gender-related issues. I also post readers comments from time to time.
I am sure I am not alone in thinking that readers comments are often far more informative and entertaining than many of the articles I read. And it’s doubly true when the author is a feminist.
In reading comments I sometimes recognise the names (real or assumed) of those posting their thoughts. Some of these names are familiar to me from their posting on reddit, on mens rights blogs, and from stumbling upon their own blogs or Facebook pages. But one is a bit of a mystery.
That reader, who signs off as ‘Bev’, pops up all over the place, by virtue of the large number of comments posted each week. Not just any old comments, but generally cordial, thoughtful and articulate comments. (Example here)
Anyway thanks for your contribution to raising awareness of the male perspective Bev. Your efforts are much appreciated. And to everyone else, maybe keep an eye out for Bev’s handiwork.
And thanks to all the other women who speak up in support of the welfare of men and boys. It’s really great to see not just the numbers of women who are prepared to expose themselves to the wrath of the feminist horde, but also the calibre of their input.
If any further proof were needed about the extent of power wielded by the feminist lobby in Australia then consider the fact that gender issues are rarely mentioned by politicians unless their views are in lockstep with the feminist position on the relevant matter. As for direct criticism of feminists or feminism … well that’s as rare as the proverbial hen’s tooth.
That this is the case speaks far more about the effectiveness of feminist lobbying and infiltration of the media and public service, than about the actual number of adherents to feminist ideology out in the broader community.
Yet despite this our elected representatives, from Prime Minister on downwards … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to take a stand. Thus they would rather please a screeching minority group than represent the best interests of the majority of their constituents.
This sad trend is addressed in this February 2017 article by respected British MP Philip Davies wherein he states:
“The recurring theme is the number of MPs in different parties who tell me, privately and in a whisper, “Of course you are absolutely right about this, it is all ridiculous” but – with very few but notable exceptions – will not dare to say so publicly.
This highlights two things. Firstly, most MPs lack courage – even to say things which are just plain common sense.
Secondly, it demonstrates how petrified MPs are at standing up to the increasingly extreme feminist agenda, which no longer seems to argue for equality and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men.”
The sitting politicians’ concerns are, unfortunately, understandable when one considers the harsh criticism meted out to those rare individuals who do dare to speak out (related article) and another entitled ‘Goodbye Spectator’.
In January 2016 Mark again found himself the target of furious feminist and ‘white knight‘ scorn after he commented upon the rampant gender bias and misrepresentation within the domestic violence debate:
In this interview with Bettina Arndt, former politicians Peter Beattie and Peter Reith discuss the non-feminist perspective on domestic violence (10 October 2016). On that note, see also this further video from Bettina entitled ‘Enough Talk, More Action’ (17 October 2019)
David Leyonhjelm also kicked some good solid goals. David moved from the federal government to the (NSW) state arena (see video), until exiting the political arena in 2019.
And last, but by no means least, Pauline Hanson – the only woman in federal parliament who has anything to say in support of men/boys (2023 video).
Beyond these few courageous individuals the picture is bleak indeed. So much for living in a parliamentary democracy. So much for freedom of speech. So much for teasing apart a problematic issue and discussing new and/or alternative solutions to achieve positive change.
Now shut-up and prostrate yourselves before the wonder and wisdom of 4th wave feminism.
First up a little background about what happened in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015/6 – see the relevant Wiki entry – not that Wikipedia is free from bias but on this occasion it’s probably as good a starting point as anywhere.
Whilst the focus of this post is what happened in Cologne, readers should be aware that similar issues have arisen (but on a thus far smaller scale) in many of the other European cities that accepted ‘refugees’. I won’t worry about providing a list of links here now – just google on ‘refugee rape sweden’ or similar and you will turn up dozens of sources.
I am also aware of an incident here in Australia that also involved a sexual assault by Muslim ‘refugees’, and an alleged media hush-up.
In relation to the events in Cologne please review the following sources:
Now let’s ask ourselves this question: ‘If left-leaning liberal progressives (and this category captures many if not most feminists/SJW) had not lobbied for/permitted unfettered entry by so-called refugees, would the events in Cologne have taken place?’ I’d say the clear answer to that is ‘no’.
In looking at this incident we can see that preserving the treating Muslims and the displaced has been accorded a higher priority than keeping women safe and preserving social order.
Why is this so? What motivates people to adopt such as attitude? Naivity? Wilful stupidity? A desire to irrevocably alter the nature of western society? Or a combination of such influences? Theories abound but I half suspect that it is, in part, a case of viewing Muslim ‘refugees’ as the reborn 21st Century version of the ‘noble savage’.
But whatever is the intent of media, politicans and lobby groups, the pivotal issue is the feminist cohort is standing mute whilst the welfare of thousands of their own (white western women/girls) in compromised. Government agencies and the media have been complicit in covering-up the extent of the problem and in diverting attention elsewhere, and the law enforcement bodies have been hamstrung with PC directives from above.
And I believe that what we have seen to date – widespread sexual harassment/assault/robbery – is only the start of what is going to happen in coming months, and possibly even years.
What is doubly sickening is that feminists have then fashioned this (their own duplicity in creating a rape culture in western society) into a stick with which to beat all men. They are using it as fuel to feed their men bad/women good mantra, and anyone dissenting with their view is dismissed as a racist and/or misogynist.
I feel only revulsion at seeing what is happening, and sympathy for the women/girls who have been, or who will be, terrorised. If only we could have them trade places with the feminists/SJW who manufactured this unfolding debacle.
Here is one of the hundreds of reader’s comments in response to *that* article in‘The Independant’:
This piece is such a shameless deflection of responsibility for the widespread criminal assaults against the women of Europe it actually frightens me. There were rapes. Young girls were brutally molested. Women who were disembarking from European train stations were forced to travel through a gauntlet of violent sexual abuse as the police stood back. Although Cologne had the highest number of reported incidents, they occurred across Germany and beyond. Stuttgart. Zurich. Helsinki. A small town in Sweden where a group of teenage girls were assaulted by a pack of Middle Eastern men. The attacks were vicious. The attacks were coordinated. The attacks were meant to test the resolve of free Western societies. Articles such as this demonstrate the mental gymnastics being applied in order to cling to an absurd political ideology. Sacrificing the safety of women in free societies in order to accommodate legions of foreign men who possess barbaric beliefs about women is not ‘tolerance’. It is lunacy.”
When Islam meets the West it’s a train wreck, by Miranda Devine (22 May 2016) This article took an interesting slant on the issue, looking at how increasing permissiveness (some might say, amorality) in Western countries has provided the fuel for radical Muslims.
You might be interested in taking a look at this article entitled ‘A gender-equality wish list for 2016’, and the readers comments that follow.
The article was written by feminist journalist Wendy Tuohy. I think I first introduced Wendy in this blog post. I would probably place her in the second tier of Australian feminist journalists, were they ranked according to stridency and degree of bigotry. In other words she is a self-professed feminist with narrow and stereotypical views on gender matters, but by no means barking mad. Like many feminists she enjoys cats and blocking dissenting voices.
The issues that Wendy flagged in her latest article included domestic violence, the gender pay gap, the proportion of women in management positions, the number of women on current affairs show panels, female economic empowerment, and women playing football. No surprises there.
Ah, but then Wendy got a surprise. For with but two exceptions, her readers tore her article to shreds. Quite coherently, and with facts.
Some brief extracts from Wendy’s readers:
“We have a media dominated by women’s voices focusing (as most of you do) exclusively on women’s issues. It’s simply mind blowing to hear you say women have no voice. The only time men can speak with any confidence they won’t be crucified by the media is when they speak in total support of anything concerning the welfare of women”
“Sure, you have two journos dedicated to women’s issues and none dedicated to men’s. Maybe get a third female journo talking about female issues as a step closer to equality? Maybe four or five and we are there?”
“Yes we need to do more about DV mostly adopting an honest approach, recognizing that it is not a gendered crime and producing all the stats not just part of them.
The figure of 78 women has been front and centre but broken down 28 were not DV related and 10 were killed by women so men killed 40 women and 4 children (DV related). Women killed 19 men and 10 women plus after removing clear cases of mental problems they killed 11 children.”
The final numbers, men (in a DV situation) killed 44 and women killed 40. So let us be honest next year and tackle the problem in an unbiased manner.”
True to feminist form Wendy did not respond to her critics here, let alone attempt a rebuttal of the points they raised. But elsewhere, in her Twitter account, she implored a supporter to avoid reading the comments in the Herald-Sun, of which she was haughtily dismissive …
Yes, whatever you do fellow feminists, don’t expose yourselves to the nasty views of the unbelievers.
Hold true to your feelz, and to our precious narrative, special snowflakes!
Don’t learn, don’t understand, don’t engage or collaborate, and don’t empathise. We’ll show them.
Australian MRA Mark Dent also posted a copy of his reader’s comment on Wendy’s Facebook page. The subsequent exchange between Mark and Wendy is quite interesting, and I’ve reproduced it below in the event that it disappears from Facebook.
“Hi Mark, my brief is to focus on issues impacting women, kids and families — all of which are affected by the issues I touched on in my article titled ‘A few small changes could make a big difference’ in The Herald Sun last Sunday, and just up on my blog. Of course I care about issues impacting men: I’ve written lots about male adolescent mental health and better supporting boys in education and not ‘writing off’ teen boys (of which I have two lovely examples). But I stick to my primary brief in most of my work: issues primarily impacting women. Here is one pay gap link, reporting ABS statistics. Thanks for reading, Wendy”
(Mark replies) “Thanks for responding (as you always do) but you have proved my point. The media are not stupid. They know women devour stories about their victimhood or heroism. This is why our papers and TVs are saturated with females talking about issues which affect women.
Please point out one male journalist whose brief is to write exclusively about issues which are confronting men and placing them at a disadvantage. It seems there are many women who do just what you do so how do you then complain about a lack of female voices in the media?
Just because your brief is to focus on women’s issues does not make your statements about gender inequality any more true or acceptable.
I have presented a range of issues which impact upon men in a far more devastating way than a mythical wage gap based on gender or a purported lack of a voice (when the opposite is true). Men’s issues are about death, injury, the right to see their own children, huge disparity in sentencing for the same crime when compared to women and their total invisibility when it comes to being victims of family violence. There are weighty issues which lead to homelessness and suicide yet when was the last time any paper devoted a segment to the horrendous obstacles and injustices confronting men?”
(Wendy replies) “Mark, my former editor, Simon Pristel called me in and commissioned me to write a blog/do a round focused on women. I don’t know what his thinking was or why he chose me to do it (I was a general features writer before that for a couple of decades) but it has been going now for about 5 years so I guess it must be considered to be serving a market that perhaps we weren’t offering as much for previously.”
Mark: “Wendy-I am not attacking you for writing about women’s issues. I am questioning why this should almost always lead to anguished diatribes on all of the inequities women supposedly face and creating the very false narrative which says men are somehow privileged over women in our society.
As I have said repeatedly (and supported with facts) it is men who suffer the biggest obstacles and disadvantages as a result of their gender.
I challenged you to point out one male journalist who devotes his whole job to writing about issues concerning men and you didn’t respond. The very fact that male editors ignore men’s issues backs up my comments about politicians (male and female) devoting all of their time, energy and funding to women’s issues.
Men simply don’t matter in our world.”
Wendy: “Men matter Mark. Perhaps the ones who need attention the most don’t get it, I can only say as the daughter of a non ‘Alpha’ male and wife of same and mother of same X 2 that maybe it’s harder for the non typically macho men. That is a guess. Shoot me down if you want to.”
Mark: I don’t want to shoot you down. You seem to be a lovely person. It is just so upsetting to be fed this line of female suffering and inequality day after day in our media. You seem to accept my arguments with regard to male disadvantage but unlike female issues-there is literally no focus on these issues.
As I said-women have a voice-men have no voice in our mainstream media. You say men matter but whenever you write about family violence you focus exclusively on female victims, just as Rosie Batty does. How can this be justified?
I am passionate about the very real gender empathy gap in our society and will continue to voice my concerns whenever the opportunity arises. Here’s something I wrote about the gender empathy gap. Thanks again for engaging in such a civilized manner.”
Wendy: “Mark, thank you for treating me civilly, unlike some men on Twitter, one of whom reacted to my column like this:”
Mark: “That kind of language is totally unacceptable, Wendy. This type of abuse is often a result of deep frustration over the issues I have tried to outline in our discussion. Some men respond to the sense of injustice and helplessness (men have no voice in the public forum) with angry attacks.
I am not justifying or excusing it, but I have been abused in a most vile manner by feminists for simply presenting the arguments I have written to you. One group of feminists actually set up a website and posted pics of me and wrote lies about me being a hater of women and girls and someone who excuses DV. They said they wanted me sacked from my job as a teacher. They literally made stuff up. All because I asked why we don’t give the same attention and compassion to the suffering of males.
I know Andrew Bolt gets death threats and abuse every day. My point? Many female journalists hold up online abuse as some kind of male problem carried out by neanderthals who hate women. Men receive vile, abuse from women too. Clem Ford is a mainstream journalist who uses far worse language than that directed at you and as I said-there are no repercussions. Yet she gets a man sacked from his job for abusing her.
Perhaps if men had an opportunity to be heard in the media rather than be mocked or branded a woman hater for expressing concern for males there would be less anger and frustration in the community. You have never had to endure an almost daily assault on your gender for nigh on forty years, Wendy.
Anyway, I thank you again for engaging and allowing me an opportunity to express my views.”
A civil exchange without a trace of rancour, but you would have observed that neither here nor in her tweet does the journalist actually address the *facts* raised by readers.
Whilst Wendy Tuohy may well be a “lovely person”, both her work to date and her comments on this occasion, lend further support to the existence of a feminist mind-set characterised by:
a belief that the views of those speaking up for the rights of men and boys are unworthy of even the most superficial consideration
a belief that anyone who challenges feminist beliefs and/or champions the rights of men/boys is not only anti-feminist but also a misogynist
a lack of awareness of the male perspective on many, if not most, gender-related matters
How shall we ever move beyond this impasse and engage in an informed and constructive manner whilst feminists remain blissfully unaware of the male perspective, and react with visceral disgust and censorship upon encountering the views of non-feminists?
Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that in just a few year’s time western society will look back on 3rd wave feminism in a similar manner to that which we now look back on the hippie era? As something akin to a Dagwood Dog … a sliver of substance embalmed in a voluminous barf-inducing batter of self-indulgence and narcissism.
Initially in this post I’ve elected to profile Vera Baird and Alison Saunders (UK) and Mary Koss (USA).
With regards to prominent femocrats in the UK, I know that Mike Buchanan’s web site offers a huge amount of relevant background material. One of the things Mike does is write to these women – sometimes by way of a Freedom of Information request – demanding answers to some very pertinent and pointed questions. It can make for some very interesting reading.
My initial post regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) can be found here. This post addresses the performance of the AHRC following the departure of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, in September 2015. A further post addresses developments following the commencement of Kate Jenkins replacement, Anna Cody, in September 2023.
There was a considerable delay in appointing a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner by the time Kate Jenkins commenced her role. In the interim several articles on the topic emerged, these penned by feminist journalists with notable anti-male credentials (see here and here).
Nothing particularly substantial occurred in relation to gender issues at the Commission during this period of vacuum. That which did occur gave no cause for optimism that the AHRC’s anti-male bias had softened with the departure of Ms Broderick.
This November 2015 article discusses the finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award. Note how many of the finalists worked to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. None it would seem.
This December 2015 speech by Megan Mitchell, Children’s Commissioner, began on a relatively gender-neutral note only to then introduce material which signalled feminist bias:
“Previous studies have also estimated that over 20% of children and young people have witnessed violence against a mother or step mother”
Whilst correct, this omits the important fact that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as have seen their dad hit their mum. This is addressed in the ‘Misinformation’ page of the One in Three organisation’s web site:
“23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather” (Source)
Further gender bias was reported in the mainstream media on the same day in the following manner:
“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”.
Now back to Megan’s speech, in which she introduced Rosie Batty, Ms Mitchell was also conveniently silent about the fact that most child abuse/neglect/filicide is perpetrated by women. True to feminist form, gender is only relevant or notable when men are the primary perpetrators of harm.
Finally, on 11 February 2016 it was announced that Kate Jenkins had been appointed the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder if there were any men amongst the seven people interviewed for the position? Media commentator Andrew Bolt had something to say about the appointment of yet another woman to the role in ‘End this sex discrimination now‘.
“Far more needs to be done to close the gender pay gap in Australia.” (OMG, did she really say that?) Actually Kate, the only thing that needs to be done is that people (read: feminists) should be told to stop misrepresenting it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. A good first step would be reading my blog post.
This article suggests that Kate plans to continue along the sexist path of her predecessor. Feminist high-fives all round.
This page, from within the AHRC’s web site, is aptly entitled ‘About Sex Discrimination’. And it sure is.
The ABC interview that follows was likewise dispiriting as Ms Jenkins said she would first like to get out to “talk to women, families …”. Go on Kate, you can say it … ‘men’ is not a rude word. Men did rate a mention later, but only in the context of more ‘damseling’ (appeal to & then exploit men’s chivalry) to win support for initiatives that further enhance benefits for women.
This was followed by more obligatory feminist parroting in relation to domestic violence (caused by gender inequality, but oops what about lesbian relationships Kate?), and the gender wage gap <facepalm>. Just brimful of fresh ideas.
Underlying Lauren’s article is an assumption that either (1) there are no ‘men’s issues’, or (2) men’s issues aren’t significant, or (3) that it’s not the Commissioner’s job to address them.
Sooo let’s get men (who have been told repeatedly to butt out of gender-related discussions) to participate more and get behind making things better for women.
Further evidence of the ongoing gender bias at the AHRC was provided in their submission to the 2016 Federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (refer submission 41). In that submission it was implied that all perpetrators of domestic violence were male, that males faced no negative discrimination or stereotyping, and that all victims of these behaviours or attitudes were female or transgender. There is not one sentence in that submission that suggests that the AHRC considers that men are worthy of any support, sympathy or compassion whatsoever.
Kate commenced duties in April 2016 and duly fronted up to give a presentation at the National Press Club. A flurry of pro-feminist articles followed with no suggestion whatsoever that mens/boys issues would receive one iota of attention from the Commissioner. Oh, but she has plenty of drum-banging planned in relation to the <groan> gender pay gap. Here’s one of those articles:
I note that the Commission has added some pages to their web site in relation to Family and Domestic Violence, plus links to various articles presenting the feminist perspective on this issue. This page for example provides no corresponding statistics in relation to male victimisation, with its sole reference to that component of DV being the old feminist “overwhelming majority” mantra.
On 3 August 2016 I discovered I had been blocked from Ms Jenkins Twitter account in the absence of any threatening or abusive communication on my part. As both a tax-payer and former public servant I find this action both extraordinary and wholly inappropriate (see this post).
On 12 October 2016 Kate Jenkins was interviewed about her three top priorities. I wonder how far down the list we would need to go before finding anything in relation to the welfare of men/boys? In fact I wonder if we would find any such item/s anywhere on that list?
The Hunting Ground & the campus rape study
Now in the light of all the preceding evidence, one would hope that the AHRC would consider the most appropriate course of action to be a gradual pulling-back from their position of anti-male bias. But no, they doubled-down instead through their involvement with a project that sought to justify, and to continue, their focus on women’s rights through the feminist lens.
The images above show Kate proudly promoting book sales for misandrist radfem Clementine Ford, and then applauding the screening of much-debunked feminist anti-male hit-piece ‘The Hunting Ground‘ (article/article). What a shame she couldn’t wield her influence to have the ABC screen The Red Pill. The cash injection provided by the team behind ‘The Hunting Ground’ gave rise to an unfortunate perception of bias and conflicted interest.
It was no accident that the promotion of ‘The Hunting Ground’ coincided with the conducting of the campus sexual assault survey, and the subsequent release of the results in July 2017 as discussed in the following articles:
Manufacturing Australia’s next epidemic (26 July 2017) Video. First promote the (debunked) film ‘The Hunting Ground’ then a survey (with self-selected respondents) and now for the hysteria and demands for punitive action. Against … drumroll … men.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer review assessment of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States every five years. Australia’s next review will take place in January 2021. The Commission contributes to Australia’s UPR alongside civil society organisations. Take a look at the ‘fact-sheets’ that the Commission has prepared in relation to various key issues. Let’s start with ‘Gender Equality‘ shall we? Would it surprise you to know that there are no issues related to the welfare of men & boys?
Note this page in the Commission’s web site in the Education section, and how ‘Women’s Rights’ is a designated ‘Hot Topic’ whilst men’s/boys rights is excluded. Whilst ‘Homelessness’ is also listed as a hot topic, the gender differences in those afflicted is simply ignored.
At a session entitled ‘Smashing the Patriarchy!’ at the 2019 National Community Legal Centres Conference, Kate Jenkins served on “a diverse panel of powerful women as they reflect on their own experiences and work. The discussion will include possibilities for collective action, ways to challenge existing systems of power and patriarchy and the rights and experiences of women across Australia. This plenary will provide an opportunity to discuss key issues such as sexual harassment; the fight to de-criminalise abortion; systemic racism and discrimination experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and Muslim women …“
Face the Facts: Gender Equality 2018 – This web page and linked sources appear to have been written on the assumption that gender equality and women’s rights are synonymous. The rights or issues of men & boys are simply not mentioned.
Unleashing the power of gender equality (November 2017) by Kate Jenkins. Men and boys are essentially missing in action in this document. Word search on the term ‘men’ then scroll through each of the 89 mentions to quickly confirm where the author’s interest (bias) lies.
‘Perverse outcomes’: How Australia is failing sexual harassment victims (18 October 2017) Ms Jenkins is interviewed on the issue of workplace harassment, but appears to avoid any mention of male victimisation/female perpetration. The author, Gay Alcorn, did thankfully at least note some comparative statistics.
Financial rewards provided only to women are “smart”, even when part-time and/or low income male workers also retire with low Superannuation balances. Little wonder feminists hate the term “Apex Fallacy”.
Australian report finds disturbing evidence of gender inequality | Women | The Guardian (8 March 2017) The three letters of ‘men’ appears 67 times in this article by Kate – count how many times it related to actual men (twice). And one of these times merely refuting the claim that there is no International Men’s Day. Oh please! Lame shot! It’s not recognised by the UN, and is ignored by the AHRC and most (if not all) Australian state & federal agencies.
““Some people are adamantly opposed to proactive initiatives to improve gender equality,” Jenkins said. “Other people truly don’t understand this is still problem for Australia.” Clearly many people don’t recognise the widespread bias shown towards men/boys as constituting gender inequality.
Application to conduct a female-only gym (November 2016) This application linked here primarily as it contains links to other earlier determinations regarding the issue of gender segregation.
Now try searching using ‘women’s rights’ instead. This is #GenderEqualityWhenItSuits (25 December 2021)Nil response has been received by me as of July 2023
A separate post that addresses the issue of me being blocked from accessing Ms Jenkins Twitter stream can be found here)
