This post relates primarily to Australian law, but may include some references to laws in other western countries. The feminist lobby is frequently demanding more ‘protection’ under the law for women/girls. But as for similar calls or media coverage for recognition of the needs of men & boys? Well that would appear to be close to non-existent.
My initial thoughts are that attention to these various points would be worthwhile. Now, I’m not a lawyer so the comments here will no doubt require some serious ‘tweaking’, and the thoughts of readers would be most useful in this regard. You will also likely have your own suggestions regarding other reforms that might be required.
DNA testing at the time of birth should be mandatory with the results noted on the birth certificate. In the interim, and until such time as a database has been created, DNA testing should be required whenever an application of made for parental child support.
Where a child is conceived as a result of rape or statutory rape, then the victim of that sexual assault should not be required to provide financial support to the abuser.
Assets acquired prior to marriage should be protected from claim in the event of divorce, as should assets acquired by inheritance.
Where a court case related to sexual assault and/or domestic violence is terminated as a result of unreliable or conflicting evidence then it should be routine for a case against the accuser for false claim to be initiated. Where subsequently proven, there should be a minimum sentence imposed of not less than 12 months imprisonment.
Oh, and should you wish to also pass on your thoughts to the relevant authorities, then please note that the twitter accounts of Australian and New Zealand Attorney-Generals are as follows:
Australian Attorney-General @cporterwa, NZ Attorney-General @DavidParkerMP, Victorian A-G JillHennessyMP, NSW A-G @MarkSpeakman, QLD A-G @YvetteDAth, ACT A-G @Gordon_R_Ramsay, NT A-G @SelenaUibo, WA A-G @BobFergusonAG, SA A-G @VickieChapmanMP
** Please be advised that this post represents a working draft only **
Related pre-existing posts that are relevant to this topic include:
In May 2017 media attention was given to a practice labelled as ‘stealthing’, whereby men remove their condom during sex without their partners consent (example). Few articles even made passing reference to the fact that women perpetrate a similar act when they falsely claim to be using contraceptives in order to ‘trap’ a man in a relationship and/or secure an income stream via child support payments. This issue was addressed in this article, and then in a follow-up article by Martin Daubney. See also this Reddit discussion thread.
‘Spurgling’ or ‘Sperm-jacking’ are terms that have been used to describe the use of a man’s sperm to cause pregnancy, undertaken without his knowledge or approval. Paternity theft has been defined as something which occurs:
“when a mother names a man to be the biological father of a child, when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father; Or, She intentionally does not state the name of the child’s biological father on the birth certificate in order to either to begrudge the father, or to claim benefit” (Source)
Up until now I included references to these issues in another post, one that deals with financial abuse. I have now created this new post to address these matters, as they represent more than simply the financial abuse of men. One such aspect is the likely adverse impact on small children born either by, or into, such arrangements. This post will also address the growing problem of women stealing infants to raise as their own children.
On 26 February 2020, the Senate referred an inquiry into domestic violence with particular regard to violence against women and their children to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for report by 13 August 2020.
Further detail about the scope of the inquiry is provided in the terms of reference.
The Inquiry has been completed earlier than was scheduled and its report is available here.
This article describes the early completion of the report and the adverse reaction it received from the feminist lobby. I have yet to fully read the report, but one useful feature is a brief summary of the many enquiries that preceded it.
From an egalitarian perspective the dissenting report from Senator Rex Patrick is disappointing – and hypocritical beyond belief in terms of what was, wasn’t, and should have been addressed by the Committee.
I note too that the term ‘male victim’ appears only twice in the 44 page report, in each case only as a brief passing reference to recommendations from earlier inquiries.
2. The Inquiry (Revised version)
What do you do when a powerful part of your audience isn’t happy? Yes, that’s right, you commence another inquiry:
The deadline for submissions for this inquiry was 24 July 2020, and submissions can be viewed here.
One submission of note is that produced by the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.
This article discusses the submission by ‘Women’s Safety NSW’ which can be read in full here (see #150). Women’s Safety calls for “$12 billion over 12 years to invest in evidence-based solutions to the nation’s domestic and family violence scourge“.
Those making submissions were asked to address one or more of the topics listed in the terms of reference.
I haven’t written anything more about the topic. Yet at the same time, it is something which is put in our face every time the media (TV) runs an item on domestic violence and finishes with the advice to call (such and such agency) if “you are troubled by violent or abusive behaviour from your partner”. Which leaves everyone thinking that at least some help is available for (all) victims of domestic behaviour. But it’s not so.
Most agencies in the domestic violence sector will either turn male callers away or will (officially) cater for them, but on the (wink/nudge) understanding that they are either abusers trying to locate their partners, or are simply abusers in denial.
But now the topic of whether domestic violence help-lines actually do assist male callers has been raised again by an English researcher, Deborah Powney (Twitter id = @Firebird_psych). On 14 April 2020 Deborah began sending daily tweets as per the following:
Simple question. Shouldn’t take long to answer. And she waited. And while she did, she asked one or two further questions, for example:
“Could you provide the numbers of female perpetrators you have helped in the past 12 month? Could also provide the number of female perpetrator programmes that Respect have accredited in the same time period?” (To @RespectUK on 29 April 2020)
It took until 15 May 2020 before Deborah received an initial response.
“Hi, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is branded as a women’s helpline, however if we do receive calls from men the Helpline our staff will always listen, risk assess, address any safeguarding issues and validate the experience. They will then refer them to the Men’s Advice Line which provides specialist support for men.”
Deborah responded the same day, as follows: “Thank you for your response. Just to clarify – you do not help male victims at all – other than ‘immediate’ referal to the @RespectUK men’s helpline. Is that correct?”
@RefugeCharity further responded (also 15 May 2020)
“Hi, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is branded as a women’s helpline, however if we do receive calls from men the Helpline our staff will always listen, risk assess, address any safeguarding issues and validate the experience. The national domestic abuse helpline, which Refuge runs, is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days week. If male callers contact us, we refer them immediately to the men’s advice line, which is a specialist service for male victims of domestic abuse. They will then refer them to the Men’s Advice Line which provides specialist support for men.”
On 15 May 2020 Deborah then asked:
“Can @RefugeCharity@ukhomeoffice be clear what support the 24 hour National DA Helpline gives to male victims of domestic abuse when the @RespectUK taxpayer- funded “Men’s Advice Line” is closed (from either 5pm or 8pm weekdays to 9am & weekends) @nicolejacobsST@pritipatel”
@martintandc @RespectUK @JoTodd4 Could you clearly explain why you make specific reference to male terrorists in your Toolkit for working with Male Victims of domestic abuse for the Men’s Advice Line? @nicolejacobsST @pritipatel @ukhomeoffice @mankind @MartinDaubney @PhilipDaviesUK
“For instance, the biggest denominator in acts of terrorism and mass killings is that almost all of the perpetrators are men. Women suffer mental illness at roughly the same rate as men, but almost none commit large-scale violence. Similarly, the levels of suicide for men are much greater then for women, because of social pressure on men not to seek help to deal with their emotional problems”. (Source)
From reading this material it seems obvious to me that staff in the relevant agencies had not considered how male callers were being dealt with, let alone how they should be dealt with. The topic was not even ‘on the radar’ as it was seemingly seen to be unimportant, and offering to assist men at all was seen as merely a token gesture.
You might wish to now refer to Deborah’s Twitter account to see if any further responses have been received from government, domestic violence industry, or readers.
(Some information about Deborah’s current research project regarding the experience of male victims of domestic violence can be found here.)
“Applications for our MBA scholarship with @Sydney_Business close this Monday 11 May. Don’t miss your chance. Apply today” (linked information)
Each of these scholarships is worth over $60,000 and is “to recognise outstanding leadership, with a commitment to enhancing women’s rights and opportunities”.
I then wrote to ‘Anti-Discrimination NSW‘ using the survey facility on this page of their web site. Their response, dated 12 May 2020, is provided below. Curiously this communication was marked ‘Private and Confidential’, the significance of which which I am now seeking clarification. I also sent a query to the Uni of Sydney Business School and others earlier via Twitter, to which I am yet to receive a response.
“I refer to you enquiry received via the community response survey on our website on the 11 May 2020 concerning the University of Sydney offering a scholarship to women only.
Exemptions under the Anti-Discrimination Act NSW 1977 (ADA)
Under the ADA there is no general special measures provision, which applies to all grounds under the Act. Rather, under the sex provisions of the ADA it provides:
Exception—genuine occupational qualification (in employment only) s.31and,
the Attorney General may grant exemptions (s.126 and s.126A).
Exemptions are granted where the purpose of a particular program or service is to achieve equality between a disadvantaged group and those who are not disadvantaged by addressing past or present disadvantage experienced by particular groups in our community.
In this sense such measures are non-discriminatory, in that they aim to redress disadvantage. That is, the purpose of such measures is achieving substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality, and these measures are critical to preventing and eliminating discrimination.
In July 2019 the University of Sydney was granted an exemption to offer, advertise, and facilitate scholarships for women only in the fields of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, and finance for a period of ten (10) years. Please refer to our website (under the tab ‘exemptions’) for more information.
Since an exemption has been granted, the program the University of Sydney is providing is exempt from all the provisions of the ADA, so that they cannot be the subject of a complaint because they are providing services or programs designed to achieve equality and redress disadvantage experienced by particular groups in our community.”
Their second last paragraph refers me to this section of the agency’s web site, where you can note that Sydney University has been granted exemptions to provide female-only scholarships in relation to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, finance, and agriculture/environment. Looking through both this page (Section 126 exemptions) and the page for Section 126a exemptions, the most striking thing is that the overwhelming majority of exemptions granted have been in relation to female-only programs or services.
I wrote back to ‘Anti-Discrimination NSW’ to query aspects of their response:
“Thank you for your agency’s prompt and helpful response to my query to which I would now appreciate some further clarification.
1. Would you kindly advise, in relation to the exemptions granted to Sydney University, what factors you consider to confirm or verify proof of disadvantage for female students, relative to their male counterparts.
2. I have noted the pages in your web site in relation to Section 126 and Section 126a exemptions. My immediate reaction is concern regarding the overwhelming number of exemptions granted in relation to programs or services that cater only for women.
I question whether this does not, in itself, constitute proof of gender-bias by your agency. How otherwise do you justify this inequity in the light of the existing situation in Australian society?
In drafting your response to these queries you may wish to consider the information presented in the following sources:
Thank you in anticipation of your further assistance with this matter.”
With credit to them ‘Anti-discrimination NSW’ again responded promptly, and on 15 May 2020 they advised:
“In considering whether to grant an exemption under section 126, the President is required to consider the factors set out in the Anti-Discrimination Regulation 2014.
Section 126A certification is granted by the Attorney General. Section 126A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 provides that the Minister may certify a program or activity to be a special needs program or activity if satisfied that its purpose or primary purpose is the promotion of access, for members of a group of persons affected by any form of unlawful discrimination to which this Act applies in an area of discrimination to which this Act applies, to facilities, services or opportunities to meet their special needs or the promotion of equal or improved access for them to facilities, services and opportunities.
Under section 124A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 it is an offence for the President or staff of Anti-Discrimination NSW to disclose information obtained during the exercise of functions under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.”
Footnote: Further links to background information relevant to this issue can be found in this earlier blog post (scroll down to ‘Cost of Education’), one example of which is this recent paper by John Murawski.
Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the feminist lobby has claimed that there has been a surge* in domestic violence. (*Note that the term ‘surge’ has been well and truly overtaken by now, more recently by ‘staggering increase‘ or ‘driving a spike‘). This trend has manifested itself across several countries, with the UN Women agency being a significant player. UN Women has produced guidelines in relation to gathering data about domestic violence against women.
The feminist lobby has linked this alleged increase in violence to, in particular, the common practice of governments requiring people to quarantine in their own homes. The proof offered to support the feminist position has primarily been claimed to be significant increases in call volume to DV help-lines (largely operated by feminist NGO’s). There have also been similar claims made in relation to alleged increases in traffic to web sites dealing with the welfare of victims of DV.
In only one of the media articles I read, prior to uploading this post, was reference made to an increase in the number of calls to police. This did not relate to increases in the number of charges laid, nor punishments meted out, but rather to queries made by people concerned about a perceived threat of DV.
I would suggest, as have others, that domestic violence is the feminist lobby’s primary cash-cow. Consider too, for example, the salary of DV agency bosses such as Sandra Horley, who is reported to receive a remuneration package of more than £210,000. The British Prime Minister is currently paid approx. £155,000.
To base government policy, even just one-off hand-outs of public money, on unverified allegations, is at best naïve. And when such claims are being provided by individuals with a vested interest in promoting a public view of a problem that they assert to be large & growing. Well, one might label such vested interest ‘ideological bias’, ‘pecuniary interest’, or worse as per the flow-chart below (Source). But whatever you call it, it is by no means competent, objective, unbiased research.
It is particularly annoying that whilst the feminist-saturated domestic violence industry is loudly proclaiming a jump in violence in the home, they are maintaining their silence with respect to the reality of female-perpetrated assaults/abuse of men and children.
The other galling issue, although unrelated to Covid-19, is that I have belatedly learnt that, in the UK, the rate of women being killed by their partner was now at a 40 year low (Source). You would think that this would be shouted from the rooftops, wouldn’t you? Well, unless people sought to maintain perception of a growing epidemic. One that desperately demands further public funding.
What follows now are a series of media releases or articles dealing with the issue, presented in reverse chronological order:
“The Andrews government has announced an extra $20m for family violence prevention, citing an increase in demand for “perpetrator services” during the coronavirus pandemic. Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence Gabrielle Williams cited an 11 per cent increase since last year in calls to the Men’s Referral Service.”
Domestic violence on the rise during pandemic (13 July 2020) “The survey of 15,000 Australian women in May provides the most detailed information in the world about the prevalence and nature of domestic violence experienced by women during the pandemic.” How many men did they say were surveyed? That would be *none*
No spike in home violence, police say (10 June 2020) ‘The Australian’ newspaper tells us that NSW authorities “almost doubled domestic violence checks” but found “no increase in abuse rates“.
“Professor Wendt says women are experiencing violence at a more “intense level” as they try to survive the restrictions and plan their escape as measures lift”. Needless to say, what constitutes a “more intense level” is left to the imagination, and no supporting statistics are provided to quantify intensity.
“But Labour said this fell “woefully short” of what was needed and proposed amendments to the bill that would see 10% of the £750 million charity support package announced last month ring-fenced in a fast-track fund for domestic abuse charities”
” … I have just had 50 front-line workers on a statewide forum on the phone and all of them are saying how much busier it is… and now the stats come back to prove it”. “Stats” that agency staff themselves generated … what could go wrong?
“Ms Foster said the figures were concerning because they conflicted with a recent report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which found “domestic violence assaults recorded by police did not increase in March 2020, despite social distancing measures commencing … But Ms Foster said the report had sent a “dangerous message” to victims and policymakers. She said it was “irresponsible to put out a report drawing a conclusion that fears that domestic violence would increase hadn’t been realised.”
“The Queensland Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Di Farmer, said authorities across the country were grappling with an “amplification” of abuse caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and tough health restrictions.
Domestic violence crisis centres in the state have experienced a 40 per cent spike in calls for help since the start of the pandemic …”
“The most concerning statistic came from Google data, with the Federal Government seeing a 75 per cent increase in searches about family and domestic violence compared to the average number of searches over the previous five years.”
“Alison Macdonald, acting chief executive of Domestic Violence Victoria, said there was clear evidence a surge in demand was coming. “We know from international evidence that there are spikes in family violence in post emergency and post crisis situations,” she said. “We know from Australian experience with bushfires, with floods and with cyclones.”
“To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on efforts to end gender-based violence, Avenir Health modelled a delay in the scale-up of prevention efforts as attention and resources are devoted to COVID-19, and an increase in violence during the period of lockdown. Assuming a slow start to the scale-up of prevention programmes (i.e., a 2-year delay in 2020 and 2021), followed by a rapid expansion of prevention programs in the middle of the decade, an estimated 2 million additional instances of intimate partner violence in 2020-2021 are expected.”
“COVID-19 pandemic is likely to cause a one-third reduction in progress towards ending gender-based violence by 2030”
“For every 3 months the lockdown continues, an additional 15 million additional cases of gender-based violence are expected”
That’s right, no police reports were used to generate predictions. It was all based on modelling. Remarkable. And of course, no mention anywhere of female perpetration.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic the mainstream media has been following what is by now a well-established script. That script is one that involves playing down or ignoring the negative impacts of an issue or situation on men, whilst focussing on the perceived negative impacts on women. It also involves playing up the positive contribution of one gender over the other, with regards to fixing the problem. And if this sometimes involves misrepresentation, exaggeration or even fabrication – as it invariably does – well apparently, so be it.
Australia’s ABC is notable for the extent to which it embraces the leftist/feminist/SJW perspective. On 17 March 2020 the ABC published an article about COVID-19 developments in Australia. Perhaps you might like to scroll down to the item about Hamilton Island.
That article mentions “a man diagnosed with coronavirus who recently travelled to Hamilton Island“. Actually it was a woman. Until this tourist travelled there, there were no other reported cases of COVID-19 in the region. The article also mentioned that the “ABC understands the patient recently travelled from New South Wales where they were first tested.”
A regional newspaper article published on 19 March 2020 (pay-wall protected) provides further/clearer details of the incident …
“A woman admitted to Mackay Hospital on Tuesday with coronavirus defied health orders and flew to Hamilton Island after being diagnosed with novel coronavirus in Sydney. It is understood the UK tourist, in her mid-30’s, was found on a Hamilton Island beach after NSW Health authorities alerted their Queensland counterparts”.
“She is understood to have told health authorities she did not understand the directive to self-isolate after testing positive to Covid-19“.
Domestic violence – or more specifically domestic violence against women – has been one of the major gender issues appearing in the media thus far. I have addressed that issue, or at least one aspect of it, in another post.
Further items related to the impact of Covid-19 on women, and vice versa:
Coronavirus Queensland: Two teens bring virus to state (29 July 2020) It began with the Chief Medical Officer labelling the women’s actions as “very disappointing”, and this was subsequently explained in this article, this article, and this article. And according to media reports their reason for visiting Melbourne included stealing expensive hand bags. Fools.
Coronavirus lockdown prompts spike in women’s porn (10 July 2020) And as for the claim that women’s tastes in porn is not “grubby” like men’s … try searching on google for ‘women like more violent porn’, and you’ll find sources like this one.
Sydney woman turns to OnlyFans after losing cafe job in coronavirus pandemic (2 June 2020) Pro-feminist news.com.au, which run stories like this almost daily, informs us that she’s since made a “huge amount of easy money”. But it’s ok because she “has opted not to do nudity”. Yup, would someone volunteer to confirm that and let me know the outcome?
(You can read about the wit & wisdom of Clementine Ford here)
“It’s a free country” (12 April 2020) & in another incident … “A 20-year-old woman stopped in Port Macquarie gave police her twin sister’s details before police dropped her home with a warning. She refused to go inside, walked off, gave police the finger and was promptly handed a $1000 fine.”
But what’s going on? There appears to have been a change of feminist tactics, as this is the 2nd paper I’ve read today admitting that there had been no boost in the number of calls from DV victims since the commencement of the pandemic.
“At 9.20am yesterday, a woman was walking south along Sharp Street, Cooma, in NSW, when she allegedly stepped in front of another woman and intentionally coughed in her direction.The woman allegedly continued to cough at members of the public as she walked past them, including a woman with a young child.”
Malaysia apologises for telling women not to nag during lockdown (1 April 2020) Many recent articles express sympathy & frustration on behalf of women forced to isolate with men who (allegedly might) beat them, or at least don’t wash more dishes. But sympathise with men who have to put up with nagging or condescending women …. ooh no …that’s some serious #misogyny. Stop it now, you hear?
Tellingly, media outlets like The Guardian reported this as ‘young people’ rather than “young women”. Most of those that didn’t (initially), either amended online copy or removed it within hours of publication.
“Seriously people, this is not the time for judging, finger pointing or shaming. Our world is in uncharted territory, we are all desperately trying to filter through the mass of news we’re consuming eager to decipher what works for us and our families.”
Yes, similar to the way feminists refrain from finger-pointing at, or shaming, men. All the time. Oh please, spare us the tunnel-vision!
"During the #COVID19 outbreak, it's an opportunity for a spotlight on the role of women at home that often goes unrecognized, unappreciated & not reimbursed, and also women in the work settings who are at the frontlines. It’s women who are carrying this burden." – @doctorsoumyapic.twitter.com/1T6EAskhe5
Last night I read an article by the MRA-related UK group HEqual.
It was regarding the response of three UK feminist politicians to the suicides of Caroline Flack and of Carl Sargeant. It disgusted me. I suggest you take a look now … you can read it here
That HEqual paper reminded me of some earlier similar events, and initially the case of Ms Layla Moran (Lib Dem MP for Oxford West & Abingdon and Spokesperson for Education, UK)
One surprising inclusion in the 2020 Australia Day honours list was a Member of the Order of Australia award for Bettina Arndt. It was surprising not because the recipient was undeserving (which she wasn’t), but because such public awards tend to favour those pushing politically palatable (and increasingly left of centre) causes.
You would probably be aware that Bettina is an active supporter of various issues affecting men and boys, and that this has put her in the cross-hairs of the feminist lobby on more than a few occasions.
And also true to form, although Bettina’s views have been described as “dangerous”, most of the media comment focused on her professional integrity rather than the specific issues she raises. Look for example at the Twitter stream for ‘New Matilda’ (@newmatilda) and you’ll see tweet after tweet after tweet concerning Bettina’s academic qualifications, but none addressing her views regarding (for example) an alleged campus rape culture.
Kindly read on for relevant details, including Bettina’s response to those launching the attacks on her.
New Matilda Statement On Bettina Arndt’s Defamation Of Nina Funnell (26 February 2020) Bettina Arndt has previously suggested that Nina was conducting a long-running & concerted campaign against her. Readers might wish to scan social media and form their own view. The Twitter stream @CEOWomensSafety could be one place to start.
Episode of The Drum (ABC) shown on 24 February 2020 (video). One of the topics addressed was, what the panel perceived as, the desirability of stripping Bettina Arndt of her OAM. See The Drum’s Twitter feed for further discussion (@ABCthedrum)
One specific criticism that has been levelled at Bettina is in relation to her allegedly ‘going soft’ on paedophiles, particularly in relation to one specific interview she conducted. One of the odd things here though, is that I have yet to hear any feminist speak out about the burgeoning problem of female paedophiles. And thus more feminist hypocrisy.
“The Federal Government will launch an inquiry into the family law system, after accusations the court system is failing vulnerable Australians.
Coalition backbenchers and the crossbench, including One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, have been calling for an inquiry for some time, arguing the system is too expensive and slow.
The inquiry will be run by former social services minister and long-serving Liberal MP Kevin Andrews.” (Source)
The feminist lobby and their domestic violence industry took great umbrage at this announcement. And so it began.
The Committee’s home page can be found here, and details concerning the making of submissions can be found here.
The first specific matter that the feminists got upset about was Pauline Hanson’s reference to the practice whereby some women make false claims against their former partners in family court, esp. in relation to domestic violence and sexual assault (refer example of outrage in the media).
In terms of topics related to the treatment of victims, another issue was that of couples counselling (related article). The feminist DV Industry is generally opposed to this practice, claiming that it exposes women to additional unnecessary risk. But not everyone was of the same view (related article).
Another curious complaint from various feminist spokespersons was that there had been too many inquiries, and the proposed inquiry was both unnecessary and would delay progress. This is extraordinary given the ongoing vocal urging for more inquiries/commissions/etc despite the many state and federal inquiries that have taken place – particularly related to domestic violence. A number of these inquiries can be seen listed in the relevant section of my Table of Contents page.
Submissions to the Family Law Inquiry have now closed, and a final report is due to be submitted in October 2020.
The Family Court does need reform, but not the way Pauline Hanson thinks (28 October 2019) As is often the case with these pro-feminist items, the material in the readers comments is more valuable than the article itself. Or at least the comments that haven’t yet been removed by the moderators, which is common practice at The Conversation. This here is a Twitter thread that might well present a wider range of views.
In closing, how many, if any, of the following groups explicitly represent fathers/men and/or male victims of domestic abuse? How many have anything approaching gender equality with regards to their board and/or their staff?
Other posts in this blog that you might find relevant include:
