Prawn of the Patriarchy

Two days each year to celebrate men

International Men’s Day

International Men’s Day (IMD) is upon us again – it’s on 19 November in case you weren’t aware. Last year, as is usual, it passed with barely a blip on the media’s radar screen. At least, that was the case here in Australia.

Some government agencies, such as Australian Human Rights Commission, pointedly ignore IMD. You can read in this post how they refused to make mention of Men’s Day in their web site, whilst celebrating International Women’s Day with much vigor. I contacted the Commission a few weeks back to see if they had anything planned for this year, but received no response. I also did a search of their web site and turned up nothing.

I have yet to read any announcements regarding how Australian Federal and/or State/Territory governments plan to mark IMD2016, so I sent out a series of tweets seeking that information. I planned to include responses onto this page, but there were none. I also did google-searching but didn’t manage to identify a single IMD2016 event taking place in Australia. If you know of one then please contribute a comment.

The United Nations demonstrates its pervasive gynocentric bias in part through its failure to list International Men’s Day in its online calendar of events. If you disagree with this omission then contact your country’s UN representative and let them know how you feel. Details concerning Australia’s representative to the UN are provided here.

And I doubt you would be surprised to learn that feminists hugely enjoy mocking IMD. Yes indeed, and now repeat after me, “yeah, but every day is men’s day!”

Go ahead and savor the outrage:

Everyone around the world should celebrate men on International Men’s Day. An interview with Dr. Jerome Teelucksingh (17 November 2022)

International Men’s Day debate in the UK Parliament (25 November 2021)

International Women’s Day: Promoting gender war (19 November 2021)

Why celebrate International Men’s Day? (19 November 2021)

Eight sexist things you can do to celebrate Women’s Day! (8 March 2021)

Was the Australian Army the only government body to acknowledge IMD in 2019?

Did you forget International Men’s Day? Don’t worry – the men’s rights activists did too (22 November 2017) with related Twitter thread.

Nothing happens on International Men’s Day because men don’t really care about men and/or won’t organise anything. Paid for by? With admin assistance provided by which government agency? etc

There’s an International Men’s Day too. There probably shouldn’t be (9 March 2016)

Happy International “But when is Men’s Day?” Day (8 March 2016)

Every day is Men’s Day. That is why we need Women’s Day, by Sarrah Le Marquand (7 March 2016) Australia. But, oh, look at the push-back by hundreds of readers.

Things we could celebrate on an International Men’s Day, by Ben McLeay (7 March 2016)

(You might also be interested to read my post in relation to ironic misandry)

The one ray of sunlight was the decision by the UK Parliament to convene a debate regarding men’s issues on IMD2016, mainly thanks to the dogged persistence of one man – Philip Davies. (Here is the associated parliamentary briefing paper)

Glen Poole (UK) does a great job discussing the various issues commonly raised in relation to IMD in a series of articles entitled ‘Dumb reasons why we don’t need an International Men’s Day’ … refer Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

The most recent development seems to be feminist spokespeople acknowledging International Men’s Day, but in a very back-handed way, see for example.

The following items concerning International Men’s Day may also be of interest:

Wikipedia entry for International Men’s Day

International Men’s Day – This Australian web site is by the Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation

International Men’s Day UK

Meme cards showing that ‘Not every day is International Men’s Day’

In 2018 the White Ribbon organisation in Scotland and Ireland organised events regarding men’s violence to women – on International Men’s Day (see related tweet)

Goodbye Spectator (21 November 2020) UK

Tory MP Ben Bradley sparks Twitter backlash after questioning why there is no ‘Minister for Men’ during Commons debate on equality (20 November 2020) UK

It’s not International Whine About Men Day (14 November 2019)

Today is International Men’s Day, but we are too busy denigrating males to celebrate it (19 November 2018)

International Men’s Day used to be dismissed as a joke, but are people finally taking it seriously? (19 November 2018)

International Men’s Day: The unsung event which champions men’s rights around the world (19 November 2018)

After years of campaigning, the world is waking up to the need for International Men’s Day (19 November 2017)

Why do we even need an International Men’s Day? (18 November 2017) by David Walsh

10 reasons we should be celebrating International Men’s Day (17 November 2017)

Whilst IMD is routinely ignored by govt’s and corporates alike, one company (Citi) uses the event to tell men that they should lift their game via the hashtag #ChallengeAllMenToDoBetter (17 November 2017) Pathetic

Women’s Network tries to hijack International Men’s Day! (22 September 2017) Video. You couldn’t make this stuff up … IMD2017 event organised by women’s group behind shield of a seemingly non-existent men’s group, with proceeds to pro-feminist group that ignores male victims of domestic violence. The organiser was asked to provide details of the ‘Australian Men’s Network’ but instead chose to lock her Twitter account (@Awn001Fran). You can watch a Paul Elam video regarding this event here, and here is another quality video from The Independant Man.

If you’re against International Men’s Day, you’re not a true feminist (20 November 2016)

An open letter to feminists on International Men’s Day (19 November 2016) Video

The issues that really matter on #InternationalMensDay (19 November 2016) So let me get this right, feminists insist that the sole focus of the domestic violence debate should be on female victims because they constitute the majority. Here however the author fem-splains that the “issues that really matter” on IMD are issues affecting male minority groups not all of the nasty unwashed white CIS-HET majority.

10 reasons we should be celebrating International Men’s Day, by Glen Poole (18 November 2016)

The silent sex shouts against inequality, by Philip Davies (17 November 2016)

‘International Men’s Day’ isn’t just unnecessary – it’s dangerous (16 November 2016)

Resistance to International Men’s Day (15 November 2016) USA

London feminists believe the nearest Saturday to Friday 25.11 is… er… not 26.11, but 19.11 (International Men’s Day). Doh!

Philip Davies’s men’s rights victory turned me into a blubbering wreck (4 November 2016) UK

Should feminists celebrate International Men’s Day? (1 November 2016)

Prime Minister and Government become first to endorse International Men’s Day: “A Landmark Moment” (27 October 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

MP Delivers Spectacular Putdown Over International Men’s Day (27 October 2016) UK

Men rejoice: You get World Men’s Day on Nov 19 (11 March 2016) Malaysia

Why bother with International Men’s Day? (8 March 2016) Video. India

Male feminist tears over #InternationalMensDay (18 November 2015)

York University in the UK distances itself from proposal to mark IMD (17 November 2015), University branded “disgusting” and “shameful” over decision to cancel Men’s Day celebration, and The University of York Doesn’t Care About Male Suicide. Further developments at York here.

Video and commentary on Jess Phillips MP scoffing at an application by Philip Davies MP for a debate on men’s issues on International Men’s Day (30 October 2015) UK Video

International Men’s Day isn’t worthy of celebration (3 April 2015)

Townsville City Council celebrates IMD (22 November 2014)

Why Every Man and Woman Should Celebrate International Men’s Day by Glen Poole (18 November 2014)

Men too need gender equality: Activists (18 November 2014)

International Men’s Day 2014: Suicide, Rape and Paternity Leave Key Issues to Tackle by Lydia Smith (19 November 2014)

International Men’s Day: Being Co-opted? by Paul Elam (19 November 2014)

Men’s Human Rights Ireland responds to feminist censoring of IMD (2 December 2014)

International Men’s Day: What are we celebrating? (19 November 2014) I think this fellow, Michael Kimmel, really does richly deserve the title of ‘mangina‘, and most of his readers feel likewise … based on the comments here.

Here are 9 facts that show every day is International Men’s Day (19 November 2014)

Should there be an International Men’s Day? (19 November 2013)

Resistance to International Men’s Day (undated)

The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the Australian Human Rights Commission 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. Now, many years later, there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. A truly pathetic effort from a very gender-biased organisation.

Fathers Day

Why Do Neo-Marxists Refuse to Celebrate Father’s Day? (18 June 2024)

Father’s Day stalls in some schools, kinders as kids lose interest (31 August 2019)

Father’s Day is Oppressive (2 September 2017) Video with 800 comments

‘Not everything is about same-sex marriage’: Father’s Day ad deemed too ‘political’ for TV (2 September 2017)

There’s a push to rename Father’s Day “SPECIAL PERSON’S DAY” (24 August 2017)

Women’s Blog Jezebel Throws a Tantrum Over Father’s Day (18 June 2017)

Why do we spend less on Father’s Day than Mother’s Day? (15 June 2017)

Fox News: Why are feminists rallying to ban Father’s Day (19 November 2016) Video

Father’s Day ambushed (8 September 2016) NZ

In praise of fathers, mostly (17 June 2016)

Anti-domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty uses Father’s Day to encourage positive role modelling (6 September 2015) And of course if I were to use Mother’s Day as an op to tell women to reflect on not abusing and neglecting their children, everyone would be ok with that, right?

Father’s Day Spending to Reach $12.7 Billion, According to NRF Survey (8 June 2015) Just over half of that spent on Mother’s Day

Angel Soft Commercial Feminism Viciously Attack Fathers Day Masculinity (16 June 2015) “My problem with this commercial is that if the reverse was done on mothers day, there would be a shitstorm. If both were considered acceptable, I wouldnt care at all. but they aren’t” (‘Trigunesq‘).

Here is a follow-up article by a single mother, and here is another article claiming that the company in question has apologised for their ad. And here Toyota does it right!

Father’s Day: Celebrating ‘Good Enough’ Fathers Is a Waste of Time (13 June 2013)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27q731/well_fathers_day_is_soon_approaching_you_know/

Feminist Fathers Day 2014 (I’m including this ghastly anti-male diatribe here sarcastically. It shows just how far some feminists want to shame men and feminise boys. As usual there are some great insights and colourful retorts amongst the readers comments).

There was also the massive internet prank that was #endfathersday and which highlighted both the sociopathic nature and herd mentality of many feminists – as discussed here, here and here

Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from “legitimate feminist dialogue” (July 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/endfathersday-happy-fathers-day-you-piece-of-shit/

#shirtstorm

In case you’ve been living under a rock in past weeks a British scientist by the name of Dr Matt Taylor landed in a world of hurt because the shirt he wore at a media conference offended some feminists. Dr Taylor is part of a team that had just managed to land a spacecraft on a comet.

In a breathtaking display of pettiness and vindictiveness a number of feminists targeted him for abuse and harassment eventually leading to an emotional apology by Dr Taylor for hurting their feelings via his choice of clothing. Said feminists claimed that Dr Taylor’s shirt embodied rampant sexism within the STEM field of professions, that was in turn instrumental in discouraging women from entering this sphere of endeavour.

Even on my very best day, I could not have summed up the debate any better than did Janet Bloomfield in her blog post entitled “It’s not advanced math and rigorous training that keeps women out of STEM. It’s sexist shirts. Watch feminists break the stupid meter“. Read it and weep.

Back off #shirtstorm scientist, supporters say (18 November 2014)

How to Turn a Cool Moment Into a #ShirtStorm by Cathy Young (17 November 2014)

A Giant Leap Backwards for Womankind (17 November 2014)

Boris Johnson: Philae scientist deserves applause, not criticism over a garish shirt (16 November 2014)

“I watched that clip of Dr. Taylor’s apology – at the moment of his supreme professional triumph – and I felt the red mist come down. It was like something from the show trials of Stalin, or from the sobbing testimony of the enemies of Kim Il-sung, before they were taken away and shot. It was like a scene from Mao’s cultural revolution when weeping intellectuals were forced to confess their crimes against the people.”

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

I don’t care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing (13 November 2014)

Brilliant anti-feminist spoof claims space scientist’s shirt is ‘sexist’ (15 November 2014) NB: This link is not working now – am awaiting advice from Breitbart on this matter)

Techno/Science Geeks Should Not be Made to Cry (15 November 2014)

Buy it here: http://www.alohaland.com/whats-new/new-gunner-girls

Other posts in this blog most closely related to this topic:

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

Beware the ire of an angry feminist

‘Our Watch’: DV advocacy or shrill mouthpiece for gender feminism?

I hold significant reservations in relation to the operation of the staunchly feminist group ‘Our Watch‘, formerly known at the ‘Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children‘. The feeling appears to be mutual as, despite being a law-abiding Australian taxpayer, I have been blocked from both their Facebook page and Twitter stream since late 2014.

My concerns include, but are not limited to:

The cost-effectiveness of allocating public monies to ‘Our Watch‘ with regards to achieving a measurable reduction in the incidence of domestic violence and/or providing tangible assistance to all victims of domestic violence
The extent to which the activities of ‘Our Watch‘ are driven by a desire to maximise the acceptance and influence of feminist ideology rather than a desire to maximise the two outcomes listed above
The effect of ongoing misrepresentations made by ‘Our Watch‘ in relation to the allocation of resources towards research into female perpetration of violence, the level of support provided to male victims of domestic violence, and the availability of counselling/treatment options for violent women and couples

On the first point, I believe that it is appropriate that the government both participate, and support the participation of others, in combating domestic violence and in assisting its victims. But this should be done in a manner that is both impartial and cost-effective. There should also be complete transparency and accountability on the part of both those allocating and those receiving public monies.

In 2013/14 ‘Our Watch‘ received a whopping $4,675,550 in government funding whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations. These funds were sourced from the federal government ($1 million/year) and the governments of Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. A financial report for ‘Our Watch’ can be sourced from the web site of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (see the relevant ACNC registry entry here and a related blog post here).

As with the White Ribbon Campaign (another Australian feminist DV advocacy group), ‘Our Watch‘ do not directly assist victims of domestic violence. Instead they rent office space, employ many ~~feminists~~ staff, and run various PR/’education’ campaigns. These campaigns are divisive and involve the dissemination of misinformation that demonises men whilst failing to deal with female perpetration of violence. I am dubious about the extent to which their campaigns reduce the incidence of domestic violence, and indeed this has yet to be demonstrated.

I note that former MP turned journalist Gary Johns was subjected to harsh criticism after querying the effectiveness of government funds being provided to advocacy groups like ‘Our Watch‘ in lieu of directly funding service provision by government agencies.

‘Our Watch‘ advocates for female victims of domestic violence, which in and of itself is a laudable goal. A problem arises however when ‘Our Watch’ justifies their focus by claiming that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men upon women, and then seeking to validate this assertion through the ongoing misrepresentation of information concerning patterns of DV perpetration (example).

I don’t think there is any doubt that statements by politically astute groups such as ‘Our Watch’ do have a significant influence on decisions by government in relation to policies, priorities and funding allocation related to the sphere of domestic violence. This has resulted in a situation whereby government agencies treat all men as potential (if not, actual) violent abusers, where there are almost no resources available to battered men (and their children), and violent women are essentially waved away until such time as they commit a serious felony.

Those who visit Our Watch‘s Facebook page and Twitter stream will note that surprisingly little of the communication emanating from that organisation is directly related to their purported area of primary concern – domestic violence. What you will see instead is considerable self-promotion, and a preponderance of material that could only be described as feminist propaganda.

On a visit to their Facebook page on 26 October 2014 for example I noted the following:

Reader Kath Kerr: It is not fair and it is not right that privileged men who murder are consistently granted lenient sentences.

Our Watch: Too many young people in Australia have witnessed acts of physical domestic violence against a parent. (No mention that equal number of kids have seen their mum abuse their dad, as have seen their dad abuse their mum – Source)

Our Watch: It’s time to stop asking what about men (in relation to this article)

Our Watch: Congratulations to Liz Broderick, Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Our Watch Ambassador, for winning the 2014 Women of Influence award. (Celebrating the work of a highly-paid femocrat who has demonstrated absolutely zero interest in the welfare of men & boys)

And finally …

Our Watch: Strong language Warning: Oh my! Language, ladies. *clutches pearls*
This is F*cking brilliant and quite possibly the best thing on the internet. Ask yourself, What is more offensive? A little girl saying ‘f*ck’ or the f*cking unequal and sexist way society treats girls and women?” http://vimeo.com/109573972

Avril Mesh, Ben Lakos, Domestic Violence Resource Service Mackay and 63 others like this.

If any readers of my blog have yet to witness this video, and wish to see just how far feminism has fallen, then click on the above link (Strong language warning)

Ok, enough! And so I proceeded to raise my concerns with the ministers of those agencies that see fit to hand millions of our tax dollars over to ‘Our Watch‘ … namely the federal Government, the Northern Territory Government, and the Governments of Victoria and South Australia.

“Dear Minister

I write to you today to voice my strong objection to material posted in the facebook page of the group known as ‘Our Watch’ (refer attached ‘screensave’). I do so as I am aware that they receive a substantial amount of ongoing gov’t funding, and thus should be at least somewhat accountable to broader public standards.

The disgusting video that they have promoted and ‘liked’ on their facebook page (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw&noredirect=1) is discussed in these articles: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/feminism-has-nothing-to-say-but-it-still-wont-shut-up/ and http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/barbara-kay-feminist-video-turns-to-child-abuse-to-send-distorted-message/

I believe that their support for such an ‘initiative’ is reprehensible and they should be required to remove both this and other radical feminist material from their web site, twitter account and facebook page. I don’t know if you look at the material that they promote in their facebook page, but it is almost entirely either pure self promotion for key personnel or strongly pro-feminist ideological material that has only cursory relevance to the subject that is meant to be their focus – domestic violence.

Please would you act on this matter as it is clear that ‘Our Watch’ require much greater oversight if they are to continue to receive large amounts of taxpayer-funded support. Thank you for your anticipated prompt intervention concerning this matter.”

I subsequently received a response to my complaint from John Elferink, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, with the Northern Territory Government:

“I write to you in response to your email dated 28 October 2014 in regards to a Facebook post ‘Potty-Mouthed Kids Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8.com’ shared by the group ‘Our Watch’.

As you are aware the role of Our Watch is to drive long term cultural and attitudinal change from the ground up through community engagement and advocacy and working in close partnership with the Second Action Plan to the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.

The Northern Territory Government is committed to reducing domestic violence. The financial contribution to Our Watch is just one of the ways that this Government is supporting initiatives which seek to drive attitudinal and cultural change.

Whilst the initiative that was placed on their Facebook page was divisive, this should not detract from the important work that Our Watch does in the primary prevention of violence sphere. I thank you for your vigilance in monitoring the material placed on the Our Watch social media pages and bringing it to my attention. I believe the offending post has since been removed and I have instructed the Domestic Violence Directorate to monitor the site content regularly.”

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Federal Member for Menzies and Minister for Social Services sent the following reply dated 3 December 2014:

“I appreciate you raising your concerns regarding the link to a video Our Watch posted on 21 October 2014. Our Watch was established as an independent company by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments in June 2013, as an initiative under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.

Our Watch will work to provide national leadership to prevent all forms of violence against women and their children. This will be done by changing attitudes, behaviours, social norms, and practices that create violence against women and children, including the promotion of gender equality. There is a growing body of evidence showing that people with a poor understanding of gender equality may also have attitudes and behaviours that support violence.

The long term outcome of Our Watch is to encourage public conversations in Australia to support gender equality and understand the links between gender inequality and violence against women. Content on the Our Watch Facebook page is chosen to engage people in the debate by raising awareness about the importance of gender equality, challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of women in our society.”

So there we have it … promoting a video of pre-teen girls swearing their heads off = providing “national leadership“, a further aspect of which involves Our Watch encouraging “public conversations” by removing dissenting Facebook posts and banning their authors from contributing further. Would the Minister be equally comfortable with a men’s rights group promoting a similar video “challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of (men) in our society.” Probably I guess, unless, of course that would involve facilitating just a little too much real gender equality.

The Hon Jay Weatherill MP, Premier of South Australia sent a very basic acknowledgement only, and the Hon Heidi Victoria, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women’s Affairs, Minister for Consumer Affairs, has yet to provide me with a response. I will update this post should such a response be received.

See also:

Not content with offering ‘guidelines‘ instructing the media how to cover domestic violence in line with feminist dogma, Our Watch is now offering tangible incentives for those who comply (May 2022) … And here’s more feminist guidelines telling people the correct manner in which to write about violence against women (December 2022)

Another grubby video (using child actors) from the leftist/feminist/SJW crew (October 2019) USA

Oh, but look what happens when videos are made using allegedly right-wing kids who employ bad language, e.g. Joe Bernstein’s coverage of ‘Soph’. Clearly not seen as cool & empowering in that situation, huh? And yet another feminist double-standard (May 2019)

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?

Statement in relation to *some* of the funding that Our Watch receives from the federal government each year

A further example of the inappropriate use of children to help bang the feminist drum

Natasha Stott Despoja launches anti-violence campaign (10 November 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Other posts in this blog that are most relevant to this topic:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?
Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative
Just how heartless (or deeply in denial) can people be?
A busy few weeks for gender matters (Aug/Sept 2014)
Feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch’ seeks shield from public scrutiny

One charity’s perplexing response to a potential source of donations

My father died from prostate cancer. I had an idea that I might put some donation buttons in this web site so I approached the major Australian prostate cancer charity, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, with a proposal:

“hi there, I maintain a mens rights blog at www.fighting4fair.com. I thought I would put in a “donate now” button to help fund-raise for your organisation. I came to your web site today looking for a ‘button” that I could cut and paste into one or more locations within my site, with the image hyperlinked to your everydayhero donation page. do you have such a button I could use, preferably with html code pointing to the page of your choice? Cheers”

I got a reply back the very same day which left me a little perplexed:

“Thank you so much for your email and reaching out to support PCFA. We are very grateful for your offer of having a donate now button on your website but as PCFA isn’t just about men but also about their families and the wider community, as they too have to deal with the side effects to prostate cancer, therefore, we like to work with bogs/website that are all inclusive of these audiences. Once again thank you so much for your offer and support and good luck with the continued success of your blog.”

Oh, the irony of being excluded due to a policy favouring inclusiveness. A curious state of affairs, made more so as I don’t know:

What test of ‘inclusiveness’ was applied, or the nature of the blogs/web sites deemed to meet that criteria
If the staff member who wrote to me deigned to peruse my site before determining whether or not it was sufficiently inclusive, and
Whether that decision was sanctioned by way of an established policy or whether it simply reflected personal bias on the part of the individual involved.

On that last point I looked through the Foundation’s web site but couldn’t find any applicable policy, even for example in relation to the suitability of sponsors.

Perhaps the Foundation’s decision reflects the ‘deer in the headlights’ reaction demonstrated by some organisations when they imagine their name appearing in the same sentence as the words ‘men’ and ‘rights’? That would be odd given that the Foundation is in fact in the business of securing mens rights. The right to remain free of disease due to world-class scientific research. The right to have access to the best possible methods of treatment. The right to be treated with empathy and dignity. These are rights, or at least should be rights, rather than privileges bestowed by a capricious matriarchy.

I happen to think my blog is pretty darn welcoming, and presumably so do most of the 500-600 people that it attracts each day (and growing steadily). The only visitors who might be feel a tad marginalised – though I still welcome their readership – would be gender feminists. And as dad used to say to me, ‘you can’t please everyone’.

I’m disappointed that this has happened. Not being a political ingenue I can appreciate the merit of not alienating those with influence over government funding priorities – where the real money comes from. But when did worrying about what people might think become more important than actually helping?

I have invited both the CEO of the Foundation, and the staff member who wrote to me, to add their comments to this blog. I will update this post should any further information come to hand.

Ending the ‘inclusive’ myth (11 November 2014) By sheer coincidence this thread popped up today

Prostate Foundation is looking for staff (this also popped up on 11 Nov … by coincidence)

Why is this blog anonymous?

I’ve been subject to some criticism on the basis that, for the time being at least, I choose not to post under my real name. Apparently it follows that I must therefore be creepy and/or a loser and/or a troll and/or that I feel guilty about what I write … and so on, and so forth.

So how about I deal with the issue right here and now?

The primary reason I post anonymously lies with the number of crazies and self-righteous SJW, both on the internet and in real life. Feminists, in particular, often demonstrate a remarkable proclivity to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than engage with real issues. But they do more than that.

Most of those who write online from an MRA and/or anti-feminist perspective have been subject to doxing, online stalking and abuse. The shocking treatment to which Jasmin Newman was subjected to over a long period of time, is a case in point. See an investigation into the online stalking and harassment of Jasmin Newman (June 2016), with more about Jasmin’s situation in this article, and more about one person who allegedly harassed her here.

Here is another example involving a prominent MRA who used the online name ‘Janet Bloomfield’.

Additionally, some time ago I had a long-running problem with a stalker, and I wouldn’t wish that experience on my worst enemy. And now that I am married, there is no way in the world that I would expose my family to the threat of being subjected to such behaviour.

A further reason lies with the disturbing trend of denying people a voice on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, etc. Oh, so you are not a women? Then you can’t possibly have anything valid to say about issues affecting women, so STFU! (+ further example). This is very wrong. Everyone has the right to express their opinion and to engage in public debate, ideally in the absence of attempts to censor or shame them into silence.

Sure, many times people will subsequently demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. On the other hand, valuable insights sometimes emerge from those looking in from the outside offering us a fresh and/or uninvested perspective.

I would invite readers to engage with the issues I am writing about, rather than focussing on the sort of person I am, or that they think I must be.

If you feel that this doesn’t amount to a valid reason to post anonymously, then tough luck!

Rant and rave. Cry me a river. Whatever

Men and women playing together nicely

See, it can happen And you’ve been such good readers, here’s another tune for your listening pleasure

How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men

What follows is just one example of feminist hypocrisy. Not the worst example by any means. But just one that happened to come across my desk the other day. The author is a feminist journalist working for an Australian pro-feminist media group, an organisation that has been mentioned in one or two of my other blog posts due to it’s routine anti-male bias.

The title of the article is ‘How tragic that men are afraid to help kids‘ (29 October 2014), and it begins:

“THIS story finding more than two thirds of Australian men would be afraid to go to the aid of a child in need for fear of being thought a potential “pervert” is so sad for men and kids.”

Well that’s reasonable isn’t it? Of course it is sad that men are all too aware that they are viewed as potential predators. Very sad. But let’s think about how this situation came about.

Firstly, and undeniably, it is partly due to actual perpetration of sex crimes by a very small number of men, against a small minority of children. The actions of these people are obviously inexcusable, and clearly such offenders need to be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

But then the media, advocacy groups and public agencies take over, building that kernel of evil wrong-doing into a mountain of fear and foreboding. They do this not only in relation to their handling of the specific issue of child sexual abuse by men, but also with regards to how they address the topics of (for example) domestic violence, sexual violence/‘rape culture‘, and workplace discrimination and harassment.

I need to digress here for a moment because feminists are wont to respond to what they imagine men are saying, rather than to what is actually said:

Men are not saying:

That the issues mentioned above are not real and/or do not warrant remedial action being taken
That all men are innocent of wrongdoing in relation to these issues
That the misrepresentation of men’s culpability is indicative of a global conspiracy against men (as is the case for example with feminists and their belief in the existence of a patriarchy)

Men are saying:

That media coverage of the issues listed above generally asserts (or at least implies) that men are almost always the perpetrators and that women are victims, when this is often not the case
That even in those situations where rates of male perpetration are substantially greater than female perpetration, this is not a valid justification for failing to acknowledge and address female perpetrators and male victims
That this biased misrepresentation of the actual situation appears to be a deliberate attempt of the part of many writers to damage the credibility of men and/or support and further the cause of feminist ideology
That this ongoing misrepresentation is unfair and unhelpful in addressing the issues under consideration

Let’s think about the broader picture of how men are presented in the media generally, and that is anything but a positive portrayal. It is no coincidence that the Australian media is overwhelmingly influenced and shaped by feminists and their white-knight cohorts. Should you doubt this fact then start reading almost any of the posts in this blog.

Let’s think about why women are not similarly viewed as potential predators despite the fact that they are responsible for most (non-sexual) child abuse and neglect, much elder abuse, and given that there are now almost daily incidents involve adult women preying on underage boys and girls.

A major factor here is, yet again, pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the media. This pervasive sexist bigotry sees men’s transgressions amplified, whilst women’s are minimised or ignored entirely. The general public then comes away with the idea that men’s perpetration is commonplace, deliberate, and severe, whilst women’s crimes are rare aberrations for which there are usually extenuating circumstances.

Let’s think about what feminists in general, and feminist journalists in particular, are doing to address this issue of men being portrayed as evil. I mean apart from shedding crocodile tears by way of superficial space-filler articles like the one introduced earlier.

Are feminists, for example, lobbying for airlines to stop their discriminatory policy of not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied minors? Are they lobbying for the imposition of gender quotas for male primary school teachers? Are they doing anything at all to help? Please prove me wrong, but I think you will find that the answer is no. No, they are much too busy pushing in the opposite direction.

PS: By the way, I did try to share my views about the article in the Herald-Sun web site via submitting a readers comment, but alas it was not posted. I’m hardly surprised … such ~~censorship~~ moderation is absolutely par for the course when it comes to feminists seeking to avoid having their precious ideology ~~critiqued~~ derailed. Oh, and then the author of the article blocked me from her Twitter page – presumably in retaliation – rather than providing a mature and lucid rebuttal. This is what a feminist looks like.

Male teachers fear student contact for false abuse claims: experts (4 August 2017)

Men won’t volunteer to help the Scouts for one depressing reason: they’ll be labelled paedophiles (13 April 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Wendy Tuohy: Too right, women do more work. And we’re so tired (17 March 2017)

Feminism: The demonization of males, by Stacy McCain (2 March 2017)

An open letter to men, who can help female runners feel safe (6 December 2016)

Rachel Stewart: No predator more dangerous than the human male (12 October 2016) New Zealand

‘Hysterical’ feminism isn’t helping our fight against domestic violence, by Corrine Barraclough (22 July 2016) Australia

The damage being done when people insist ‘boys will be boys’, by Clementine Ford (3 June 2016)

Congratulations creeps: You’ve scared women off the streets, by Wendy Tuohy (13 May 2016) Australia

Australian teacher warns young men not to become teachers as a result of the experience he has had (7 May 2016) The investigation into an accusation of inappropriate touching last two years – then found to be unsubstantiated.

Men won’t volunteer to help the Scouts for one depressing reason: they’ll be labelled paedophiles (3 May 2016) UK

Demonising men creates a culture of fear that is bad for everyone, by Karen Brooks (18 April 2016) Australia

Men are way creepier than women, according to science (14 April 2016)

Introducing the most derided ethnic group in Britain: young white men (14 December 2015) UK

When a women-only community is the answer to male violence, by Clementine Ford (18 August 2015)

A similar article from another feminist journalist at the same newspaper. This one is entitled ‘Why is being a male a crime these days?‘ (12 May 2015)

Women’s studies prof calls for ‘men control’ (23 June 2015) More on that here

Funding for Sydney Men’s Health Service axed

Many readers would be aware that the level of Australian government support (both federal and state) provided to men’s groups/men’s issues is miniscule in relation to that provided to groups advocating for and/or providing services to women. I am currently in the process of trying to quantify this differential but it is developing into a mammoth undertaking.

I recently came across a readers comment about men’s health in a blog post about an unrelated matter. Reader ‘Michael’ stated:

“Hope you can maintain some momentum, as there is no funding for grass-roots groups that are concerned about men and boys. The Mens’ Health Information & Resource Centre at the University of Western Sydney has had its paltry funding withdrawn, so there is no longer any formally based Australian organisation concerned with issues of male experience and equity.”

I then googled searched seeking confirmation of this news, which I had previously heard nothing about. I couldn’t find anything nor could I see anything in the Centre’s own web site. Anyway I eventually did get a response from a former staff member of the Centre, who advised as follows:

“Thank you for your email. I and responding to your enquiry on behalf of MHIRC …

Our long-standing funding arrangements that have been renewed since 1999 from the NSW State Government were ceased in 2013. This represented our major source of funding for the operations of the Men’s Health and Information Resource Centre at UWS. The Centre also operates The Shed at Mt Druitt for which funding has been provided for one more year and this originates from the Federal Government’s Department of Health.

The funding sources are not transferable so one source cannot subsidise another. For MHIRC, this means that our key projects of Men’s Health Week and MENGAGE the NSW Male Health Clearinghouse are able to continue only in a very limited format. We are currently exploring funding for 2015’s Men’s Health Week through other sources such as donations.

MHIRC was recently visited by the Governor-General, at his own initiation, and this may open up discussions about future funding.

Essentially, what we would like to say to the community and people concerned about approaches to male health that are not just medical or disease-focused, is that we need your support. If you would like to contribute to keeping important community-driven events like Men’s Health Week going, donations can be made to the Men’s Health Research Fund at the University of Western Sydney.

On a personal note, I will continue to donate time and energy to keep Men’s Health Week and MENGAGE going as I did when it was my job as I now work in a different part of UWS. I believe strongly that we need community-driven support for social wellbeing programs for men in Australia beyond the ‘problem-driven’ answers that governments focus on.

Thank you for your interest in the future of a social approach for men’s health in Australia.”

The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses part of the problem Vs. The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses all of the problem

A white ribbon or a symbol denoting a white ribbon has been used by a number of movements in recent history as described in the relevant entry in Wikipedia.

Two of those entities are active in addressing the problem of domestic violence. For the purpose of this discussion I will refer to them as the the White Ribbon Campaign, and the White Ribbon Campaign (feminist version) respectively.

The first of these organisations is committed to addressing all forms of domestic violence, and is led by respected domestic violence campaigner Ms Erin Pizzey. This organisation pursues a gender-neutral approach and utilises unbiased professionally conducted research. Here is their web site and Facebook page.

Until recently their web site address was www.whiteribbon.org, but legal action taken by the organisation discussed below now prevents them from using that domain name.

The role of the White Ribbon Campaign (feminist version) is limited to addressing violence by men against women. They publicise research results that support the notion that domestic violence as a gendered crime, and assert that virtually all domestic violence is perpetrated by men. They ignore or seek to discredit research that does not support their position. Here is their Australian web site (& Facebook page) and their Canadian web site.

Many people have expressed concerns over the years regarding the policies and the actions of the White Ribbon Campaign (feminist version). This can be readily ascertained by googling on the words ‘White Ribbon Campaign criticism’ – some examples can be seen here, here, here, here, here and here. Here is also a reddit discussion thread on Bunnings Warehouse and the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ plus an article by a feminist who is decrying mens objections in relation to advertising undertaken by the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’.

I believe that we will only make meaningful inroads into solving the scourge of domestic violence if we commit to addressing the entire DV problem, not just the parts that don’t threaten the validity of feminist narrative of men=perpetrator and women=victim.

I believe that we should provide adequate support to ALL victims of domestic violence.

I believe that we should recognise and provide treatment programs for all perpetrators of intimate partner violence, regardless of race, gender, age or sexual orientation.

If you share those beliefs then please sign the pledge at http://whiteribbon.org/pledge-to-end-violence-against-everyone/

Ever since it was created the White Ribbon Campaign has been the subject of relentless feminist attack. What strikes me as ironic is that these attacks have generally been on the basis that it is a vehicle to “scam” money from members of the public and/or that donated funds would be better directed towards “real charities” … presumably like the White Ribbon Campaign (feminist version).

The thing is though … how many of these “real charities” actually spend donated funds on providing practical assistance and support to victims of DV versus spending it all on salaries, expensive marketing campaigns and conferences? How much government oversight is there to ensure that objectives are being set and achieved and money not misspent or wasted?

And just how much of that marketing is simply about building brand awareness of themselves and of feminism generally, about promoting an exaggerated perception of the scale of the DV problem, and about generating suspicion and hostility between the genders? All of which, not coincidentally, serves to rev-up the gravy train of government funding.

See also:

Domestic violence and White Ribbon day – help change the debate, by Bettina Arndt (21 November 2015) Australia

White Ribbon CEO Libby Davies jumps the cash cow (22 February 2015)

A red flag from White Ribbon (17 February 2015)

White Ribbon stop fibbin’! (8 December 2014)

White Ribbon Australia fraud exposed (23 November 2014)

Erin Pizzey takes charge of WhiteRibbon.org (9 November 2014)

White Ribbon considering legal action against men’s rights group (6 November 2014) I noted, and raised with SBS, the fact that they failed to upload readers comments in relation to this article.

‘Men’s Rights’ Movement Sinks to a Sickening New Low by Stealing from Domestic Abuse Charity (30 October 2014) Laughably biased and misleading article but the author receives sound solid feedback in the reader’s comments section.

Why Is an Anti-Feminist Website Impersonating a Domestic Violence Organization? (24 October 2014) Be sure to peruse the readers comments

From Paul’s inbox (25 October 2014)

Whiteribbon.org prepares for possible legal battle (26 October 2014)

The Fraud of White Ribbon (March 2013)

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:

White Ribbon Australia acknowledges male victims and invites communication (credibility trigger warning)

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

White Ribbon campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!

Interesting perspectives from a poster named ‘Bowspearer’

I came across a feminist article entitled ‘Feminist bitches – Who needs them?‘ (11 August 2014)

The article itself was codswallop but one thing I saw that’s well worth remarking upon, was a series of comments by a reader named ‘Bowspearer’ (see footnote). I’ll reproduce his opening comment below, and would recommend that you read the entire discussion at http://theaimn.com/feminist-bitches-needs/#comment-168495. This guy has got some great insights to impart. (Update: The discussion thread recommenced on 31 October 2014, and the recent comments are excellent)

“The article is deeply flawed and ironically endemic of the vast multitude of problems which feminism has which in terms of it’s ideological model, make it actually a barrier towards gender equality.

Firstly, the article talks about women in power whilst clearly being oblivious to what real power is in this world. Politicians aren’t powerful by any means- they’re nothing more than puppets. The real power in this world belongs to the Money Power – be it investment bankers, mining magnates or any member of the hegemonic class. This is the class of 0.1%ers who are rarely, if ever, visible and reduce our politicians to nothing more than puppets. Included in that class is the British monarch – who has actually been female for 132 of the past 232 years. The reality is with the exception of Gina Rinehart, such power is rarely, if ever seen – in the case of either hegemonic men or hegemonic women.

Two examples come to mind of this. The first is Melissa Babbage, who until the GFC worked as a majhor derivatives trader for Deutsche Bank and whose investment portfolio was so massive that it’s clear that it is she, rather than Joe Hockey, who is the breadwinner of that family. The second example which comes to mind is an old school friend’s stepmother who again, is a highly wealthy and influential member of the banking class who was even an advisor in the 2nd Bush administration – where the real power lies and this was one of the more powerful advisory positions.

Gina Rinehart has also made their position abundantly clear. Such individuals in the hegemonic class, male or female – care little for plight of the subordinate class and would have us all working for slave wages if they had their way. Any notion which women at the top are “part of the sisterhood” is pure, romanticised drivel. Furthermore, any notion that we are even aware of just what the exact gender breakdown, gendered wealth breakdown and opportunities are for men and women within the hegemonic class – especially when much of that class keep their power and themselves hidden, is misguided.

Secondly, it ignores power dynamics. The fact is that there are a wide raft of factors which determine power in this world of which determine just how powerful or powerless someone is. The fact is that a disabled man will always face greater discrimination in this world than an able-bodied woman, non-caucasian men are more likely to experience discrimination that white women ( especially Middle Eastern men I might add) – in addition to factors such as class, transgender and sexual orientation. Yet feminism discards this complex reality for the theory of “Patriarchy”, whereby all men are falsely elevated to some imagined bourgeois and all women are falsely relegated to some imagined proleteriat. Feminism will certainly claim to acknowledge this inequality, but the cold hard truth is that feminism views it through the lens of “women HAVE problems; men ARE problems”.

Feminists lament their perceived lack of access to the hegemonic class, whilst ignoring that with the way gender dynamics are actually structured in this world, it is men who fare worst in the world. Men make up 95% of workplace fatalities – all so they can be the “good providers [for “women and children”]” which society demands them to be, which in cases of large scale infrastructure involve examples such as the construction of the Panama Canal, where 28,000 men were killed in its construction. Likewise, men make up the primary victims of war, all so they can fulfill the social expectation of being “good protectors [of women and children]” – which results in incidents like the 1 million dead in the battle of the Somme being, all too common in war.

Yet according to the feminist theory of “patriarchy”, men relegated to subordinate masculinities such as this somehow magically oppress women – even hegemonic women like Gina Rinehart who would love nothing more than to use them as slave labour. Furthermore if hegemonic females are just as culpable of this as hegemonic males, then how can a male-power-focused model of patriarchy, even remotely be accurate?

Before I move onto third world issues, let’s take more of a look at first world issues. Feminism perpetuates the myth that when it comes to abuse, “men are [exclusively] perpetrators; women are [exclusively] victims[; anything to the contrary is to be dismissed as a statistical anomaly]“.

In terms of rape, this plays out in the form of the myth that non-consensual sex is only rape when the victim is forcibly penetrated – despite the fact that when studies like the 2010 NIPSVS in the US have kept track of men being forced to penetrate someone against their will, they have found that not only are half of all rape victims men, but that 40% of all rapes are committed by women. Yet this is barely recognised in a society where feminism perpetuates the flawed notion that rape culture is entirely perpetrated upon women by men.

In terms of domestic violence, despite studies having shown for over 4 decades that roughly half of all domestic violence is bi-directional, roughly a quarter is exclusively male-on-female abuse and roughly a quarter is exclusively female-on-male abuse. Yet the collective “[men’s] violence against women” mantra which society dogmatically chants on this issue, results in society treating battered men as urban-myths/perpetual-liars who “had it coming to them” and regards individual victims as effectively being cheap, filthy, worthless sluts”. So vile is this entrenched sexism, that in several states here, police have been trained to automatically view the male as the aggressor on domestic violence call-outs, resulting in many domestic violence victims being arrested, simply because they have a penis between their legs.

In terms of child sex trafficking, it is portrayed in the media as exclusively being men preying on girls. However the reality is, in the US for example, that half of all child sex trafficking victims are boys, 35% of all child sex traffickers are female and studies have found that 40% of boys and 13% of girls service female clients.

In terms of pedophilia in general, society views a boy being raped by an older woman as a “rite of passage” – so much so that laws in the US for example, mandate that a male child rape victim must pay child support to their rapist if a child results from the rape. Furthermore researchers in the UK have found that victims of female child predators, male or female, are far less likely to be believed than victims of male child sex predators when they disclose their abuse – even to police.

This is of course, just a handful of issues in the developed world of many. Then there are problems in the third world faced by men – such as the epidemic of war rape against men in the Congo, to which both women and men are active participants in.

People cite the brutality of women in Shari Law abiding Islamic countries, whilst completely ignoring the plight of homosexual men there being just as brutal.

Then you have India where female violence against men not only gets a free pass, but the victims are mocked if they are witnessed or dare to speak out.

Again, these are just a couple of examples of countless many.

The thing is, if feminism is so concerned with gender equality, then where is it’s genuine recognition of these issues in terms of men HAVING issues, as opposed to men BEING issues?

Where is feminism’s recognition of both subordinate masculinities and hegemonic femininities?

Where is feminism’s recognition of the existence of female privilege (which btw is a significant barrier in addressing female hypoagency) as well as male privilege and the effect that both forms of privilege have in maintaining traditional gender inequalities? For that matter where is feminism’s accurate understanding that “privilege” is nothing more than a conditionally granted set of permissions designed to glorify and maintain traditional gender norms that are revoked the instant an individual deviates too far from acceptable gender norms.

Ms McQuade laments the page she found, yet she is clearly blind to why egalitarian women would have serious concerns over feminism as a movement in an ideological sense or the fact that if feminism cleaned house (beginning with recognising the existence of female privilege and how it has poisoned feminism) it would ironically be well on the way to addressing female hypoagency and therefore achieving genuine gender equality as a foundational level of society – whilst gaining support from egalitarians, who have surpassed feminism’s flawed and superficial gender understandings.

Sadly, much like paleo-masculinists, PUAs and Beta Male Traditionalists are blind to how toxic and self-destructive male privilege is, so too are traditionalist females and feminists blind to how toxic and self-destructive female privilege is. Until such time as that changes, more and more people are going to discard feminism as a toxic and academically superficial gender model.”

Footnote: I subsequent learnt that ‘Bowspearer’ is Andrew Richards (Twitter handle = @bowspearer)

Home Truths: The Costs and Causes of Domestic Violence (March 2015) More great comments contributed by Andrew