Another federal government domestic violence inquiry – This one focuses on family law

“On 16 March 2017, a Committee of the Australian Parliament adopted an inquiry into how Australia’s federal family law system can better support and protect people affected by family violence. The inquiry was referred by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis Q.C. The Committee aims to make recommendations that will improve the system for all participants.” (Source)

Members of the public were able to provide feedback in the following ways:

  • Community statements for individuals who wish to discuss their experiences of the treatment of family violence within the family law system with the committee.
  • Public hearings to gather evidence from stakeholders, including government agencies, non-government organisations, and experts in the policy area.
  • Written submissions addressing one or more of the terms of reference to be received by Wednesday, 3 May 2017.

The Chair of the Inquiry is Sarah Henderson MP, who is interviewed here on Sky News Australia. In this interview Ms Henderson unreservedly commends the work of Rosie Batty (strike 1), as well as mentioning some of the specific issues to be addressed in the Inquiry.

One such issue was the possibility of creating some sort of nexus between the nature of court orders made in relation to spousal support and property settlement, and the presence or alleged presence of family violence in the relationship. This is described in the Terms of Reference at point 4:

“How the family law system can better support people who have been subjected to family violence recover financially, including the extent to which family violence should be taken into account in the making of property division orders”

Men are already being blackmailed with allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse in relation to child custody matters, and now it seems they will also have to worry about the impact of such allegations on their financial affairs (strike 2). How many more male suicides will this generate?

As of 21 June 2017, 114 public submissions have been uploaded onto the Committee’s web site. I tendered a brief submission which can be accessed here (see submission 113).

The Committee subsequently tabled its report in Parliament on 7 December 2017. The report, which makes 33 recommendations, is available to read on the Committee’s web page at this link. The media release for the tabling of the report can also be found at this link.

Under a 2010 resolution of the House of Representatives, the Government is required to respond to the report within six months. When the Government has provided a response it will be made available on the Committee’s web page.

Related media articles:

One in Three Campaign supplementary submission to Federal Parliamentary Inquiry published (24 October 2017)

Lone Fathers President To Address Parliament Inquiry On DV (28 July 2017)

Good men doing nothing‘ by Bettina Arndt (9 May 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread (see comment by ‘SantaOrange’)

Domestic Violence Inquiry To Take On The Family Law System (23 March 2017)

I don’t want no menfolk near my daughters, you hear?

“The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.” (Source)

Thanks largely to the pervasive influence of feminism, anti-male bigotry has been accorded a level of acceptance well in excess of that applicable to other significant segments within the community. This has been reflected in an increasing number of rather biased articles in the mainstream media, examples of which can be found in the following posts:

New Zealand journalist labels men as the ultimate predators
A few observations in relation to yet another article critical of men
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men
On the issue of traveler safety
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

Today I wanted to address an article by Jane Gilmore entitled ‘Be outraged at the abuse of children, not at one mother’s efforts to protect her daughters‘ (2 March 2017). Jane’s piece focuses on an earlier article by Kasey Edwards,  ‘Why I won’t let any male babysit my children‘, and the public reaction to it.

After Kasey’s piece appeared I read three well-intended, but somewhat insipid, rebuttals. These were penned by Ben Pobjie, Melissa Hoyer, and Louise Roberts. Still, the fact that any rebuttals were published is indicative of feminism’s gradual slide from the pedestal of public opinion. A considerable amount of material also appeared on social media, most of which was critical of Kasey’s position.

Jo Abi, on the other hand, wrote an article in Mamamia supporting Kasey’s stance. Interestingly, even in that feminist forum many readers held a different view.

From an MRA perspective this was pleasing to note, the only negative being an unfortunate tendency by some to personalise the issue via referencing the potential danger posed by Kasey’s family.

Jane stepped in at that point to address those taking umbrage at what they perceived as the gender bigotry inherent in Kasey’s position. What follows now is Jane’s article (shown in italics) with my comments inserted in relevant places (and shown in blue font).

A wave of outrage broke and splattered across social media this week over an article by Daily Life columnist Kasey Edwards about the choice she and her husband have made to keep their children safe from sexual abuse. In it, Edwards pointed out the following statistics:

“…the ‘best case’ scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.”

“Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males.”

These disturbing facts should indeed provoke outrage. But they didn’t.

This is the page in the Australian Institute of Family Studies web site where Kasey sourced the statistics noted in her article (scroll down to ‘How many Australian children are sexually abused‘). The author describes the difficulties compiling these statistics and their consequent limitations. Note too the basis for the “1 in three girls” statistic mentioned in both Kasey and Jane’s articles.

Kasey’s chosen strategy does not “keep their children safe from sexual abuse”. This is because a) men aren’t responsible for every instance of sexual abuse, and b) her daughters would still have contact with men at other times. Remember that the definition of abuse used here does not require actual physical contact. Kasey’s approach only theoretically reduces the likelihood of sexual abuse occurring. Not all personal threats and dangers. Not even all child abuse. Sexual abuse only.

You see, sexual abuse is just one of the four types of child abuse (and in fact it’s the least common variety). Sexual abuse is the only form of child abuse wherein surveys consistently identify more male than female perpetrators (although there are still plenty of those).

No surprise then that this is the form of child abuse that feminists keep the media’s focus on. A similar thing happens in the realm of the domestic violence debate, whereby all those forms of DV other than heterosexual male-on-female violence are air-brushed out of the picture. 

Instead, the backlash was in response to Edwards’ acknowledgment that men are the most likely perpetrators, and the resulting decision she and her husband made to not have men care for their children without a woman present.

Cue articles and endless anger about how hurtful and offensive this is for men. Followed by strawman arguments about Edwards’ husband caring for their children without supervision, despite her article clearly stating this was a decision they reached together.

Likewise, suggestions that her children would miss out on male role models and have a warped view of men. (Edwards clarified on The Project this week that her daughter has a wonderful male teacher).

Writer Amy Gray, who skilfully moderated a long and mostly respectful debate on this topic, said, “The uproar over this article hasn’t been about how to combat rape culture, community enablement, lack of law or police reform, or suitable therapy or support for victims. The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do. The uproar should be tackling the overwhelming male presence in sexual assault of children.

It’s hardly surprising that the focus of feedback provided by readers mirrored the narrow scope of the article. Kasey did not address the issues above, nor did she indicate that she would welcome dialogue on those issues. If Kasey expected more holistic feedback then she should have written a broader and less injudicious article.

And it’s curious that no link was provided to that “long and mostly respectful debate”. Don’t tell me it reflected poorly on team feminism?

“I want men to examine their role in this culture,” she added. “I want them to actively combat it and question men who refuse to participate in that.”

On the contrary, the volume of feedback generated by Kasey’s article clearly demonstrated men’s *insistence* in participating in the discussion whilst rejecting the demonisation of an entire gender based on the actions of a very small minority.

The real difficulty with Edwards’ article was that she outlined a single approach to preventing child abuse in her own family. But if we are talking about preventing child abuse at a community level then we need to talk about a community-wide response.

Which comes back to the perpetrators. Again, they are mostly men, and yet men are so rarely part of the discussion about prevention, other than to object to the facts being discussed.

Why is it that men are so much more likely to commit violence and abuse? What happened to those men, where did they learn this behaviour? How can they change?

Clearly there is a problem with violence in our community, and a lot of that is due to men. A very, very small minority of men. A point that seems perpetually lost on feminists. And where are all these men objecting to the “facts”? Alternatively, where are all the feminists discussing prevention with regards to issues like circumcision, the sexual assault of men & boys, male suicide, etc?

What positive outcome/s are borne from the incessant criticism of men and the manner in which they are portrayed in the mainstream media? The consistent lack of recognition for the contributions made by men in terms of the well-being of the community? The paucity of government funding support for addressing men’s health and other men’s/boys issues? The bias of the legal and justice system against men?

The active support of the feminist lobby sure wouldn’t hurt, but their pointed indifference to date is hardly encouraging.

Turning our attention now to women, which occurs all too rarely other than in relation to some issue of perceived victimhood, why are there so many violent and abusive women? (NB: trending upwards). Why is this not being acknowledged and addressed? esp. bearing in mind that they are producing the next generation of not just child abusers, but perpetrators of domestic violence generally.

Exploring this, without defensiveness and with a genuine desire to find solutions, is the most valuable way men can participate in protecting children. It’s disturbing that many men are so aggressively unwilling to do this, leaving the burden of finding solutions to everyone else.

Seriously Jane, imagine if an article appeared wherein the husband set out his strategy to prevent his sons being killed by only having male carers. The reaction from your ilk would not have been merely “defensive” – they would be livid.

And Jane, what of the many instances where people do demonstrate “a genuine desire to find solutions”, and are attacked for doing so simply because they dare propose solutions that are contrary to leftist/feminist dogma? Want examples? 

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
White Ribbon campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)
Sallee McLaren must write on the blackboard “I must not challenge the feminist narrative”
Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence (Here Jane Gilmore sabotages Australia’s only advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence, only to then criticize the men’s rights movement on the basis that it doesn’t do anything but criticize feminists)

This is why mothers are so often vilified when they do something as simple as wait outside while their children go to the toilet, and conversely, vilified again if they acknowledge the facts of child abuse and act to protect their children from possible perpetrators.

The author was not criticized for wanting to protect her children, but for making a decision of dubious efficacy in the absence of an objective and unbiased consideration of all relevant factors. 

It’s not surprising given how fraught it can be to navigate the issue that parents like Kasey Edwards and her husband look for solutions that don’t depend on community-wide protection. Their choice is not right for everyone – indeed for some, it’s very much the wrong choice. But for them, it’s the best way to keep their children safe. And given the deep, lifelong trauma caused by child abuse, it is both justifiable and understandable.

Their solution, however, only works for their circumstances. It relies on them always having options for childcare that fit within their parameters, which is not readily available to many parents.

There is no proof that this approach “works” for anyone, full stop. As to whether it’s practical for parents to even attempt, your point is taken.

It also assumes that they, their family, and their children’s friends are always in partnered, heterosexual relationships. In the Edwards’ policy, children of single fathers, or in families that do not include people who identify as women, already suffering exclusion and stigma, are excluded even further.

Even for families who do have the option to have women always present, it places an extra burden on those women, who are already taking on the majority of (unpaid) emotional and domestic caring labour. This is particularly difficult in the context of the systemic economic disadvantage women suffer, which requires men to take on an equal share of parenting. It’s a quandary that can’t be solved by making women the “abuse police”. Men have to take responsibility for prevention and commit to unambiguous action on the causes and realities of abuse.

Please, jettison the male-shaming and #HeForShe nonsense. Both men and women parent children. Both men and women abuse children. Everyone has an equal role to play in reducing the incidence of abuse.

While there are undeniable problems with the Edwards’ choice, the outraged criticisms of it are equally problematic, and frankly blind to the realities of how abuse occurs and its effect on victims.

Pot-Kettle-Black (big time)

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a paper this week describing the grooming practices of abusers. Grooming is not something abusers only do to victims. They also deliberately create relationships with parents and caregivers that involves trust, friendship and dependence. And they make sure their victims know about it.

Was this specific to male abusers? The paragraph that follows implies it was.

As feminist writer Cecilia Winterfox told Fairfax Media, “Every time we say, ‘but my male friends are so lovely’ we make it harder for victims to speak out. It reinforces and demonstrates clearly to them the reflexive disbelief they will almost certainly face. It’s a kind of cultural gaslighting to victims, and a signal of protection to abusers”.

And every time feminists say ‘men can’t be raped (by women)’, ‘domestic violence is men’s abuse of women’, ‘women are only violent in self-defence’, ‘men don’t suffer negative effects from domestic violence as much as women do’, etc etc etc. That also makes it more difficult for “victims to speak out” right? But that doesn’t seem to deter feminists from making these statements. More equality-when-it-suits?

The royal commission paper was specifically about institutional responses to child abuse, so the recommendations were focused on cultural change to identifying and reporting grooming techniques. Which may work in well-monitored organisations, but it’s not something any individual parent can enforce in their social group.

Deanne Carson, co-founder of Body Safety Australia says a blanket ban on men caring for children is not the solution. “We need to empower adults to be a champion for children. This means debunking myths around childhood sexual abuse, teaching them to spot grooming techniques and supporting them in being able to address concerns about any individual’s concerning behaviour.”

It also means broadening the debate beyond child sexual abuse, firstly by considering all other forms of abuse. We also need to consider related issues such as the sexualisation of children, and again, both men and women play a role in this process.

The problem with these strategies, as Carson acknowledges, is that they don’t keep all children safe, they just protect the children whose parents can implement them. And not all parents feel able to do this.

Which is why the solution needs to go back to the community and the abusers, not victims or their carers. And we can’t do that while men are still refusing to discuss the source of the problem.

As Edwards told Daily Life: “Of all the people who have told me how ridiculous and offensive I’ve been, not one of them has come up with a feasible alternative to keep children safe”. <end of article>

Jane expands her views on the matter in an item in her personal blog, asserting that Kasey’s response was understandable and should be respected:

… often the responses are emotional because there is no other way to respond to such trauma. Those emotions are real, valid, complex and demand respect.”

Jane says this even though there is no suggestion in Kasey’s article that her children had previously been subject to abuse (and I sincerely hope that is not the case). Jane then adds:

“That respect is not present when men who have never been forced to feel those emotions are simply offended by the facts.”

Cheap shot. Because men have never been subjected to abuse as children, or fathered children who have been abused by others, right? And because I didn’t notice any reader feedback wherein the “facts” (presumably the quoted abuse statistics) formed any part of that individual’s objection to the article. Seemed to me people were upset about inference, opinion, and plain old bias.

And wait a minute. The feedback on Kasey’s article that Jane found so objectionable was contributed by men and women in roughly equal measures. It’s just as valid or invalid therefore to suggest that women are also “still refusing to discuss the source of the problem“. Unless Team Feminism has bestowed honorary bloke status on the largely silent majority of women who choose to hold a non-feminist-compliant opinion.

Earlier we noted Amy Gray’s haughty dismissal of the negative reaction to Kasey’s article: “The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do.”

Let’s not detour to talk about single dads, yard work and the like. Let’s pretend Amy is right and proceed on the basis that men’s feelings count for nought. As presumably then, in the interests of gender equality, so too for feminists’ feelings.

Because rest assured, men certainly do want to be a part of the solution to the scourge of child abuse, but it seems most unlikely that it will be on feminists’ terms.

See also:

Safety around dogs: Half of all kids get bitten by dogs, so don’t let one near your daughters.

Reddit discussion threads in relation to the Kasey Edwards article:(r/mensrights thread #1) (r/mensrights thread #2) & (r/australia). The latter thread also provides links to several other threads on this topic

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

Gender bias and wasted opportunities at the 2017 National Family Violence Summit

Today was the second and final day of the National Family Violence Summit. The Summit was facilitated by the Tara Costigan Foundation and sponsored by BaptistCare. An extract from today’s program is shown below:

And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.

How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.

This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.

This is an affront to men everywhere, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where women are now smeared and disregarded in such a manner.

And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.

Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.

The ‘big picture’ of domestic violence comprises substantial numbers of abusive men and women, and of both male and female victims of that abuse.  There is also a considerable (yet rarely acknowledged) element of bi-directional violence, where both partners perpetuate abuse.

And what of women’s role in addressing domestic violence, not only as empowered and autonomous individuals, but also in recognition of the fact that many women are also abusive. Not only is there a long-running problem with child abuse by women, but there is also a growing problem with female violence generally. These issues are alternately either excused away (“women are only ever violent in self-defence“), minimised or ignored altogether.

The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.

There have been so many talk-fests and inquiries in relation to domestic violence. Almost without exception their value has been severely compromised by a failure to open the floor to all ideas, especially those contrary to feminist dogma. That appears to have also been the case with the Summit, given that none of the speakers represented a men’s rights group, a father’s group, or an advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence such as One-in-Three.

Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?

The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.

Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.

Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?

I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.

Here are some links to related news coverage:

Rosie Batty joins 7.30 to discuss the summit on family violence (28 February 2017)

Former army chief David Morrison calls for national day for domestic violence victims (28 February 2017)

The good thing to come out of horror of Tara Costigan’s murder (1 March 2017)

 

A New Year’s message from Bettina Arndt

I wish I had a dollar for every letter I have received from an Australian man congratulating me for daring to write about what’s happening to men in this country. I’ve written about issue after issue where men are being done over: the denial of women’s role in domestic violence; the beat-up over sexual harassment; the increasingly anti-male rape laws; the scandal over shonky research being used to deny fathers overnight care of young children after marital separation. The list goes on.

My correspondents claim they wouldn’t dare speak out about these issues for fear they will be howled down. That’s the great irony. The men who are claimed to still rule our world are too frightened to stand up for themselves. Well, now there are things you can do to help change the debate in this country.

This year an important international conference on men’s issues will be convened on the Gold Coast on 9-11 June 2017. See more information at http://icmi.info/ .

Some of the great international speakers coming to that event are bound to shake things up – I’ll write more about them in the future but they include Erin Pizzey and Karen Straughan whose videos are available here. It’s important we get people to sign up soon to ensure the conference is a success. So please spread the word.

But there’s another issue where we need you all to get on board. Last October I wrote in The Australian about a documentary called The Red Pill which was to have been screened by Palace Cinemas that month in Melbourne. Unfortunately the Palace owner caved into pressure from an anti-male lobby group and ended up cancelling the screening – the only place in the world where this happened. See my blog… http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/the-red-pill-2/

The Red Pill was made by a well-known feminist filmmaker, Cassie Jaye, who took a good look at some of the men’s issues – thinking she was going to send up men’s rights groups – and ended up concluding there are serious issues that are impacting on men and that feminists are behaving badly in shutting down proper debate on these topic. The Melbourne screening ended up taking place as a result of crowdfunding, which attracted a huge response from people offended by the idea that in a free country like Australia it is possible for such a small lobby group to determine what the rest of us are allowed to see.

See Cassie Jaye’s interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky News. http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/time-mens-issues-agenda/#foobox-1/1/xb0NOcWv4cE

Since then the lobby groups have managed to stop another viewing in Sydney.

Now a new one is planned for Brisbane on January 14 : https://www.facebook.com/events/377824965903301/?active_tab=about

But lobby groups are working hard to close that down too. See here, a typical article which misrepresents the contents of the movie, falsely attributing misogynist quotes to the men’s rights activists interviewed in the movie.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/29/secret-brisbane-screening-for-divisive-mens-rights-doco-the-r/.

We have to stop this happening. Just think about it – here’s a movie about the unfairness of feminist activists stopping public discussion over important issues in men’s lives and we are allowing them to get away with preventing Australian audiences even seeing the documentary.

You can help stop this madness by exposing what is going on here. We need you all to ensure this Brisbane screening of The Red Pill is a success by making sure people book in and come along to see it.

Can you please post information about what is happening here everywhere you can think to do so – on Facebook, twitter, send messages to your email contacts, ring up radio stations, write letters to newspapers, post comments on line. The reason the activists are getting away with closing down these events is people aren’t aware of what is going on.

Let’s make 2017 the year we stopped complaining about anti-male treatment and actually did something about it. Promoting The Red Pill is a great place to start. And don’t forget to book in for the men’s issues conference in June.

See also:

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

International conference on men’s issues 2016

A few observations in relation to yet another article critical of men

The mainstream media is awash with articles infused with anti-male bias. Indeed after being conditioned through decades of exposure to this material, most people accept what they are told. In comparison to most of those articles, the focus of this post regarding alleged male risk-taking behaviour is admittedly rather benign. Indeed, if taken at face-value it appears to be sympathetic to the welfare of men & boys.

Examined more closely however the article reflects the contrasting and hypocritical manner in which the media addresses men’s & women’s issues.

The same day I noticed this article I came across another in a similar vein. That article mocks men in relation to another trait associated with masculinity – demonstrating protective behaviour towards women.

No there is nothing controversial about shaming men – just men – about pretty much anything nowadays. That’s kind of my point. And the article isn’t so much about “asking why“, but telling us why … apparently men are foolish.

And oddly, whilst this is an article about men’s behaviour, it begins with an account of the drowning of a 23 month old toddler. This seems to infer that even very young boys are dying due to masculinity-induced recklessness. Presumably female toddlers are more careful.

As the article is relatively brief, I’ll provide it here in its entirety:

Drownings blamed on men’s risky behaviour‘ (The Australian, 30 December 2016)

“The twin brother pulled unconscious from a Sydney swimming pool has died three days after his sister, in what has been described as a “deeply disturbing” week for water deaths.

Charli and Robbi Manago, 23 months, had been fighting for life in The Children’s Hospital at Westmead since they were found in their family’s pool around 7pm on December 20. The hospital last night confirmed Robbi had died.

His death takes the number of coastal and inland waterway fatalities since Sunday to 11. Nine of the dead were men.

Experts say a deadly cocktail of conditions — male bravado, consistent warm weather, and a poor understanding of water dangers — has led to the deaths.

As police and volunteers return to Sydney’s Maroubra Beach to find the body of missing teenager Tui Gallaher and search a Wagga river in the south of NSW for a 42-year-old man, experts have warned people not to overestimate their abilities.

Between 80 and 90 per cent of drowning victims are male, according to recent figures.

Four people died on Boxing Day, including 60-year-old Geoffrey Blackadder, who died trying to save young relatives from a rip on the NSW north coast, and 25-year-old Amine Hamza, who died after swimming with friends at Bents Basin in Sydney’s west.

“It’s deeply disturbing. Men are more likely to overestimate their swimming ability and underestimate how dangerous conditions are,” said Justin Scarr, chief executive at the Royal Life -Saving Society Australia.

“Men are more likely to swim in locations away from lifeguards and crowds, and they’re also more likely to consume ­alcohol.””

As you can see, the premise of the article is that substantially more men die from drowning due to those men taking excessive and presumably avoidable risks.

May I ask you, when was the last time you saw a headline “X blamed on women’s risky behaviour”? Where ‘X’ might have been death/rape/injury/cosmetic surgery/whatever. 1965? That’s because journalists know that when they discuss any such situations they must, at all costs, avoid be called-out for ‘victim-blaming’. And yet the same consideration is not on offer when men are the victims. Gender equality when it suits?

The assertion that drowning deaths result from men taking undue risks appears unproven. The examples of swimming outside the flags and drinking are provided, although neither of these behaviours are exclusive to men.

There are other possible explanations for a gender variation in deaths, particularly the likelihood that men venture into the water more often, and for longer periods, than do women. Clearly those who don’t go to the beach, or who lie on their towels 95% of the time, are less likely to drown in the ocean.

All outdoor activities have some degree of inherent risk, i.e. they are all “risky”. Given that men are significantly more likely than women to participate in almost all forms of outdoor recreation, they are clearly more likely to be injured or killed participating in such activities. One of the few exceptions is netball, a sport recognised as having a low risk of drowning.

If a significant number of drowning deaths were due to medical emergencies then it would make more sense to focus on men’s health, than male shaming. It is likely that some of the male drowning deaths were also the result of men attempting to rescue others.

For the purpose of this discussion let’s concede that “risky behaviour” (to be defined) may indeed result in more men drowning than women. And of course it would be preferable that those tragedies not occur. But before rushing to judgement let’s also consider the issue of risk-taking by men in a broader context.

Men tend to take more risks than women, and this risk-taking results in a range of both positive and negative impacts on society. On the positive side I would go so far as to propose that risk-taking by men has been and continues to be the powerhouse of civilisation.

Need someone to step forward to defend a woman being attacked? Men are expected to step forward, and are shamed if they do not. Need someone to defend a country from attack? Ditto.

In Australia 97% of workplace deaths involve men – around 175 people in 2016. Men working in dangerous and unpleasant jobs that women generally won’t accept. Where is the outrage about the risks these men take in providing necessary services to the community?

Based on media coverage, or lack thereof, it would appear that men taking risks in the name of chivalry, industry and national service is acceptable if not expected. In contrast, men taking risks during their leisure hours is unacceptable and worthy of negative media attention.

Men don’t deserve to be shamed for exhibiting the trait of risk-taking, nor for choosing not to do so. In fact greater recognition that male risk-taking more often benefits society would seem appropriate.

Sure there will be times when some men deserve a thoughtful journalistic rap over the knuckles, but this should not be the default position. Similarly there are times when women’s behaviour merits a commensurate sanction. At the moment however women are rarely subject to criticism, are encouraged to take risks, and the blame for any negative repercussions more often placed at the feet of men.

It’s time everyone got on the same page with gender equality, and recognised that there should be one standard to which we are all held. And that support and empathy should be consistently applied and gender-blind. Anything less will see more of the same unfortunate and divisive gender bias that now permeates the mainstream media.

See also:

Reader posts in a related Reddit discussion thread here

Former senior judge Richard Gee latest to die in summer drowning tragedy (3 January 2016)

Further related blog posts that may be of interest include:

On chivalry

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

On masculinity and ‘real men’

How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

Women are held accountable for … (say hello to the Teflon Gender)

Men do more of most things … get a target painted on their backs

On being male or female (incl. innate differences, stereotyping and so on)

Men’s Referral Service: Clayton’s* support for male victims of domestic violence

“The Men’s Referral Service provides telephone counselling and referrals for Australian men impacted by family violence.” (Source)

The Men’s Referral Service (‘MRS’) web site does not provide any information about the management of MRS nor its legal or financial details. Readers are informed that:

“The Men’s Referral Service is a service of No To Violence, Male Family Violence Prevention Association (NTV). Find out more about NTV.”

Further details regarding MRS can however be accessed in their ACNC register entry, including their constitution, list of directors, and financial returns. The most recent financial report (year ending 30 June 2015) showed annual income of just over $2 million, of which just under $1.7 million was received in the form of government grant/s. The biggest single expense, just over $1.7 million, was listed as “staffing costs”.

Whilst the material provided in the MRS web site provides some pretence about their interest and involvement in supporting male victims of domestic violence, they are very much a pro-feminist organisation whose primary interest is the isolation and treatment of abusive men.

The MRS was recently thrust into the limelight as a result of a decision by feminist NSW Minister, Pru Goward, to award them an extremely lucrative grant ($13 million over 4 years) to ostensibly provide support services for male victims of domestic violence.

That ill-judged decision was discussed in some detail in this Nov 2016 article by Bettina Arndt, and also in this media release from the One in Three advocacy group – which I would recommend that you now take a moment to read.

This news came some time after the original media release announcing the availability of funding for male victims of domestic violence. This was much- applauded at the time by individuals opposed to the gender-biased nature in which government grants had been dispensed up to that point in time:

“For the first time in NSW, male victims of domestic and family violence will receive dedicated support, NSW Attorney General Gabrielle Upton and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Pru Goward announced today.

“As part of a record investment in domestic and family violence prevention, the 2016-17 Budget included $13.3 million over four years to make it easier and faster for men and boys to get help when they need it,” Ms Upton said.” (Source)

Thus this has been very much a case of two steps forward and one step back in terms of achieving a reasonable and equitable level of support for male victims of domestic violence.

*To learn the meaning of the term Clayton’s see here

See also:

One man’s grassroots insight into the Duluth Model domestic violence perpetrator programme (15 December 2016) Helps explain, amongst other things, why unsuitable groups like MRS are awarded contracts like this one.

Should we scrutinise ALL reports of family violence? (2 December 2016)

Someone has described how the new feminist DV intervention system in Australia works in menslib and askfeminists. Its absolutely disgraceful (February 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

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

Another government inquiry to tell us that domestic violence = men beating women because patriarchy

Excuse me NSW Government, your gender bias and lack of objectivity is showing (again)

 

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

“When feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. Jaye had only heard about the Men’s Rights Movement as being a misogynist hate-group aiming to turn back the clock on women’s rights, but when she spends a year filming the leaders and followers within the movement, she learns the various ways men are disadvantaged and discriminated against. The Red Pill challenges the audience to pull back the veil, question societal norms, and expose themselves to an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.” (Source)

The Australian premiere of The Red Pill was to have been in Melbourne in early November 2016. That didn’t happen. A feminist petition on change.org saw Palace Cinemas crumble and give in to their demands to cancel the event. This discussion thread looks at some of the misrepresentations made in the text accompanying that petition.

There were then several change.org petitions underway seeking to have Palace Cinemas reverse its decision, a link to one of which is provided below:

Stop Extremists Censoring What Australians Are Allowed To See. Save The Red Pill screening

More than 8,000 people signed this – almost four times the number of people who signed the petition that saw the screening axed! This petition provides a copy of the letter sent by Palace Cinemas advising that they were cancelling the event. The comments added by petitioners are also quite instructive.

In response to the number of people calling on Palace Cinemas to reverse their decision, feminists then rallied in opposition to make sure the film did not go ahead.

Feminists say publicly that they don’t want The Red Pill screened because of it’s alleged hateful and misogynistic message. That’s only partly true. In actual fact they are more frightened by the prospect of:

a) ordinary people being exposed to an alternative perspective on various gender-related issues, and in particular the public becoming aware of, and sympathetic towards, the men’s rights movement

b) the public questioning aspects of both the feminist narrative and the actions of feminists in the community. They are quite simply terrified of the prospect, knowing that exposure to those ideas will inevitably further erode the already dwindling level of support for their tainted ideology.

To my knowledge (at the time this blog post was originally uploaded) no-one in Australia had yet seen The Red Pill. Not the feminists who started and signed the petition, nor Palace Cinemas, no one. All we know about it comes via interviews with the film-maker, a movie trailer and reviews from screenings in the USA. There is no evidence to indicate that the film contains anything offensive or upsetting to the average adult.

This is what feminists do. Not the benign dictionary-definition feminists, I mean the ones in real life. You only need to see how often the ‘censorship’ tag appears in posts in this blog. Censorship and the erasure of dissenting voices, by whatever means, is absolutely a central theme in gender feminism.

What does that tell you about the inherent nature of this ideology? Why do not more people recognise this for the enormous red flag it is, and speak out accordingly?

This video is a good intro to the nature of this ground-breaking film.

Update April 2017: Dendy Cinemas in Canberra and Newtown cancelled scheduled screenings of The Red Pill. And again a petition was started calling on the cinema operators to reverse their decision.

Update June 2017: Cassie Jaye visited Australia to speak at the International Conference on Men’s Issues. During her stay she was a guest on Channel 10’s ‘The Project‘ and on Channel 7’s ‘Sunrise‘ program, both of which generated a lot of media attention.

Rachel Corbett (who was on the panel for The Project when Cassie was ‘interviewed’) wrote an article, and this is Paul Elam’s response.

This tweet and the comments appended is typical of the response to the ‘Sunrise‘ interview on social media … zero support for the program hosts

“Extreme misogynists”: Cassie Jaye vs the Aussie media (13 June 2017) Video

Director of “anti-feminist” documentary leaves The Project panel in stunned silence (8 June 2017) Despite this being a feminist forum, most of the reader’s comments are supportive of Cassie Jaye and/or her film.

A remarkably biased and unprofessional interview on ‘Sunrise’ TV show (11 June 2017) The following viewer asserts that many comments were subsequently removed from the Sunrise Facebook page. I can confirm that a video of the segment was not available via their Facebook page when I checked, and there was no relevant entry in their timeline.

Not content with that, in the face of a tsunami of condemnation on social media, Sunrise then demanded that Facebook remove copies of the interview from The Red Pill’s FB page and presumably elsewhere. So rather than do the right thing and apologise, Channel 7 tries to hide the evidence instead. This mishandling of the incident has only served to create further publicity for the film (and again here). Such clowns, and what a great example of why people have lost all faith in the MSM.

 

 

Our feral media attacks Cassie Jaye, by Bettina Arndt (12 June 2017)

A message for Andrew O’Keefe (12 June 2017) Video

Go ahead and see this prize-winning film for yourself:

There are now many avenues via which you can rent or buy The Red Pill.

The Red Pill Movie Facebook page / comments added to the Palace Cinemas Facebook page

IMD movie review page for The Red Pill

Further related articles:

Cassie Jaye, director of the world’s first men’s rights movie, has been *unpersoned* by Wikipedia (3 October 2017) Such is the petty vindictiven

Cassie Jaye’s film on the men’s rights movement shocked Australia. Why? (29 July 2017)

A feminist review ‘The Red Pill’ (26 June 2017)

Sargon of Akkad comments on the University of Sydney protest at the Red Pill screenings (16 May 2017) Video, and here is a video on the incident by Karen Straughan

Professor writes dishonest review of The Red Pill Movie, gets REKT by Cassie Jaye’s mother (12 May 2017) Cassie’s mum goes feral at some jerkov named belov, who wrote this article (note the reader’s comments section).

Protesters clash, one arrested, outside The Red Pill screening and The Red Pill: What happened at the Sydney University screening protest (11 May 2017), which were followed by
The Red Pill screening divides campus ‘libertarians’ from pro-women groups (13 May 2017)

Articles in response to Dendy Cinemas shutting down scheduled screenings (April 2017): here, herehere, and here. Some letters to the editor of The Australian can be found here.

University of Sydney Union Board disallows screening of men’s rights film THE RED PILL (11 April 2017) Australia. Further discussion of this matter here

Jaye’s Red Pill documents social failure to promote gender equality (10 April 2017)

Well met, Professor Sullivan (13 March 2017) Video with Karen Straughan

The Red Pill takes top award at Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema (18 January 2017) USA

Feminists you’re wrong. The Red Pill is not a hateful film (17 January 2017)

The Red Pill in Brisbane: a hero’s journey (15 January 2017)

The Red Pill – An uncomfortable but important conversation (9 January 2017)

Feminists, don’t ban The Red Pill, watch it instead (7 January 2017) Even when feminists try really hard to appear mature and empathetic, they fail to convince … e.g. “a movement based on the notion that men and boys, not women, are the real victims of structural inequalities in modern society“. Said by no MRA, ever, Lauren. MRA assert that men and boys are ALSO “victims of structural inequalities in modern society“.

Are the Cards Stacked Against Men?: Censored Filmmaker Speaks Out (4 January 2017) Video

Now playing at a theatre near you: Attack of the feminist killjoys (3 January 2017)

Wedding Reception Under Feminist Attack Over Movie Screening (23 December 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Video interview between Steven Crowder and Cassie Jaye (16 December 2016)

Video regarding the difficulty experienced by organisers in screening The Red Pill in Canada (3 December 2016)

Men are now the downtrodden sex: Feminist (and mother of a son) reluctantly admits women’s fight for equality has gone too far – as two men reveal how they were pushed to the brink of suicide (1 December 2016)

Permission to screen ‘The Red Pill’ at Western Sydney University denied (29 November 2016) The author of this letter to WSU points out the double standard in relation to the University’s screening of ‘The Hunting Ground’

A Young Feminist’s Compassionate View of Men (28 November 2016

Some thoughts on the Berlin screening of ‘The Red Pill’ (17 November 2016)

The Red Pill, by Bettina Arndt (5 November 2016)

Is this the world’s most dangerous feminist? by Bill O’Chee (3 November 2016)

How a feminist petition to stop a film became an own goal (2 November 2016)

Dear Feminists, please stop telling us what to do, by Corrine Barraclough (31 October 2016)

Another feminist petition (31 October 2016) I live in hope that this one will turn out to be a hoax. Failing that these people need the assistance of mental health professionals.

Video interview with the organiser of the Melbourne screening (30 October 2016)

Studio 10 TV show debates the banning of The Red Pill (30 October 2016) It’s concerning to see Jessica Rowe (and others) adopting a view, and imposing it upon others, with so little effort made in terms of research or impartiality.

The Red Pill makes the Cut in Crowded Race for Oscars (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill too truthful for feminists to tolerate, by Bettina Arndt (29 October 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Even Clementine Ford thinks the Red Pill should be shown (28 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Security guards hired for Melbourne screening of The Red Pill (27 October 2016)

Will you take the Red Pill? (27 October 2016)

Media coverage of The Red Pill (27 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Why Australian Men’s Rights Activists Had Their Bullshit Documentary Banned  (26 October 2016) The article belongs in the bottom of the cat litter tray, but some of the readers comments are good.

The Red Pill film review ~ Inciting compassion for men’s issues (26 October 2016)

Men’s rights group vows to push ahead with documentary screening (25 October 2016)

Cassie Jaye on Feminism and Men’s Rights Activists (24 October 2016) Youtube video

More Reddit/r/mensrights discussion threads on The Red Pill movie

redpill3

Excuse me NSW Government, your gender bias and lack of objectivity is showing (again)

On 21 October 2016 the Daily Telegraph published an article entitled ‘Domestic violence: Perpetrators would receive warning texts and videos‘.

I have reproduced the article below with my own comments inserted and shown in blue, and with further comments following the article:

DOMESTIC violence thugs would be sent texts messages and videos to remind them not to hurt their wives or drink too much under a Baird government trial to overcome the “existing service gap” for serial offenders.

A large percentage of perpetrators of domestic violence are female – see an abundance of research listed in this post

The bid to “break new ground” in the war against domestic violence comes as new figures show “almost half of those who reoffend do so before the court case is finalised”. The average court time frame is about four months.

“This means a large proportion of DV offenders reoffend before they have had any contact with Corrective Services NSW or access to any programs provided to them,” government documents say.

Female DV offenders don’t have access to programs regardless of the “average court time frame”, because the NSW government only provides programs for male offenders

 

The Department of Premier Cabinet’s “Behavioural Insights Unit” is calling for a “digital solution” to “support behaviour change in domestic violence perpetrators”.

Just out of curiousity, how many staff in the Unit are self-professed feminists versus others?

It said there was growing evidence “timely prompts” via apps or “digital channels” can help stop serial behaviour.

Can someone please provide links to this evidence? Who undertook it? Was domestic violence specifically included in the definition of “serial behaviour”?

Examples that should be looked at included “videos showing the impact of DV on victims”. One example contained in the documents shows a text that reads: “Hi Rick, if you’re going to the pub tonight don’t forget to make a plan for where you will sleep. Remember you are doing this for Matt and Susan.”

The Baird government wants to cut domestic violence reoffending by five per cent by 2019.

Opposition Family and Community Services spokeswoman Tania Mihailuk said a mobile phone app was a “waste” of money.

“This government has got its priorities wrong, its focus should be on secure accommodation for women and children fleeing violence,” she said.

For a fleeting moment I thought the Opposition might have had something sensible to add there. Bad luck about the men fleeing violence huh? Tania, everything mentioned in this article is a “waste of money”

Domestic Violence NSW chief executive Moo Baulch said “well resourced non-government specialist services” were needed.

With substantial emphasis on ‘more money for private organisations‘ and ‘only for womenfolk’. Read more about Moo and her gender-biased organisation here

A DPC spokeswoman confirmed it was testing the market to “gauge interest, ideas and cost for developing resources to support behaviour change in DV perpetrators”.

Wait, you mean behaviour change in male DV perpetrators, right? Because the NSW Government is apparently happy to look the other way re: female perpetrators.

**article ends here**

Conclusion

I can’t believe that the NSW government or any government would be associated with such an asinine proposal as this. It just highlights the gynocentrism, anti-male bigotry and the arrogance of all involved.

Can you imagine a proposal to send out text messages to female teachers about not interferring with their students? to mums about not neglecting or abusing their kids? or for that matter to aboriginal youth about stealing cars or breaking into homes? No? Now why would that be?

But more than that, I just cannot believe that it would make one iota of difference to the incidence of DV.

We so need a new approach to tackling DV – and a whole new team of people to drive the process. People who can think above and beyond their cherished feminist ideology, and who would be willing and able to recognise and address the whole issue.

On bigotry as art (#KillAllMen at NIDA)

NIDA →Productions & Events →#KillAllBlacks

#KillAllBlacks

Date/Time: 19 Oct 2016 – 25 Oct 2016

Eight men create an internet utopia where they discuss the most intimate details of their lives, the most righteous, and the most hilarious. Drinking, sports, work, activism, and how to be an out and proud Klansman. But when one of them disappears after being attacked everything changes. #KillAllBlacks suddenly moves from joke to reality.

OK, relax. I’m just pulling your leg. Australia’s prestigious Institute of Dramatic Arts didn’t really fund and host a production called #KillAllBlacks. That would be bigoted beyond belief. Can you imagine the uproar? Chortle, chortle. As if!

No, in fact they funded and hosted a production called #KillAllMen. It’s still bigoted of course, but the essential difference is that men are a social group that one may now denigrate without fear of repercussion. The #KillAllMen hashtag has quite a history, as discussed in this further blog post.

Oh, I can hear some of you chorus “but there is no comparison at all – men have all that privilege. Look at all those male politicians and CEO’s!“.

Ignoring all those men of colour for a moment, just what percentage of men are politicians or CEO’s? One per cent? Even that?

The writer, Nakkiah Lui, identifies as an aboriginal. One might have thought she would possess an abundance of empathy regarding bigotry. Or at least enough to avoid such a grotesque mis-step. But clearly her feminism trumps her empathy.

Hypocrisy is the short answer, but those preferring the challenge of a TL:DR version can chew on ‘cognitive dissonance‘.

Bigotry dressed up as art is still bigotry. Shame on NIDA

killallmen

Addendum: Ms. Lui was aware of this post as of the day it was uploaded, and was invited to offer a rebuttal. Subsequent feedback consisted of witless ad hominem delivered in a manner reminiscent of terriers yapping behind a screen door. The one criticism that contained even an ounce of substance, was that I had not seen the play.

How ironic then that feminists have just succeeded in having the Australian screening of a film about mens rights cancelled. A film that, ahem, not one of them had seen.

redpill

So on the one hand we have an individual castigated for saying bad words about a feminist production in a personal blog, but with no serious intent of having the play cancelled. On the other hand we have 2,000+ feminists and white knights deliberately setting out to deny everyone the opportunity to experience a production. The former production finished its run, the latter never got started.

Again, this patriarchy of ours sure does work in mysterious ways.

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

  • Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
  • Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
  • Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

  1. The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
  2. Variety; multiformity
  3. The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
  4. A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

benlawDoes the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Now let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

  1. To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
  2. To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
  3. To attract and hold fast
  4. To attract or please
  5. To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
  6. To betroth
  7. To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ is not the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick and chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program.

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when men dare mention issues that detrimentally affect them, is to tell them to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could care less about helping men, excepting perhaps a few exceptions where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women.

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

dcadebate

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

dcadebate1dcadebate2

dcadebate3dcadebate4

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? There was one other thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems currently being experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as either an adjunct to the debate, or as a subsequent event. What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.