My submission to the Australian government’s 2023 Human Rights Inquiry … the saga continues

For background relating to this item kindly read this earlier post

What now follows is a copy of an email I sent on 15 August 2023 to Josh Burns MP, the Chairman of the Australian Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.

“Dear Josh

I was able to attend the Committee’s meeting in Brisbane today, albeit all too briefly due to various other commitments, and the very short notice provided.

On 7 June I lodged a three page submission to the Inquiry. I have since been in touch with the Secretariat on a couple of occasions to confirm that it would be accepted, speaking again with Geoffrey F. this morning. Meanwhile 269 submissions have been processed and published. I suggested that the fairest approach would be to process submissions in order of their receipt.
Geoffrey did not respond to that suggestion but today advised (again) that they would try to process my submission in the next few weeks. This, assuming it occurs, would take the time frame re: processing my submission out to three months.

Today’s meeting raised another query. On what basis were some people/organisations able to present to the Inquiry in person?

Did they volunteer or were they selected by your committee? If the former then why was this not mentioned in your website or advice given directly to those who had tendered submissions? If the latter, then obviously those submissions that had yet to be processed (e.g. mine) were ruled out of contention.

In each of the cases mentioned above I consider the Inquiry has handled the relevant matter oddly, if not completely inappropriately.

All in all, a disappointing effort thus far.”

(Should a response ever be received from Josh Burns then I will post a copy here)

On 18 August 2023 my submission was finally published online (#309) and I was advised as follows:

“I am writing to advise that your submission has been accepted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The submission has been published with your name withheld on the committee’s webpage as Submission Number 309. You are now free to circulate your submission to other parties, should you wish to do so. We will also be providing your submission to anyone on request.

Your submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities attached to the Parliament or its members and others necessary for the discharge of the parliamentary functions without obstruction and fear of prosecution. This means that you cannot be prosecuted or disadvantaged because of anything that you have provided in evidence, or because you gave such evidence.”

In my original submission I noted that “the online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.” The next development was my discovery that the hyperlinks to supporting information contained in my submission were no longer functional.

On 21 August I was advised that “Committees generally deactivate links to personal websites in submissions. If you would like to provide an addendum with the URLs spelled out in full, we can append it to your submission.” I provided a proposed addendum and was advised that this would be uploaded. I checked the Inquiry website on 23 August, clicking on my submission only to learn that “There seems to be a problem with the page. If the problem persists please contact us.” As I did. And as of the evening of 23 August my submission was available online. <Party-popper duly popped>

In closing, upon my last checking, 318 submissions had been published by the Inquiry’s Secretariat. My initial impression was one of apprehension in the face of what seems to be a surfeit of formulaic ‘woke’ and/or pro-feminist rambling. Where’s all that diversity and inclusion when it’s needed? Where’s the support for men & boys?

Ah, but things could have been so much worse! Read about the experience endured by esteemed lobby group ‘One in Three’, in their dealings with another federal inquiry.

My submission to the Australian government’s 2023 Human Rights Inquiry … wherefore art thou?

Have you ever seen a feminist online advocating that those promoting the welfare of men and boys should spend less time criticizing feminism, and more time doing things to help men & boys? Yes? Well let’s take a look at an example of what happens when you seek to provide a positive input …
In early June 2023 I emailed a submission to the Inquiry into Human Rights now being conducted by the Australian Government. Note that the deadline for submissions was 1 July 2023, so I had gotten in well before time. I then sat back waiting for my submission to be accepted by the Inquiry and published on their website. Once this occurs I’m able to also provide a copy here in my website, this being in accordance with the Inquiry’s guidelines:
“After a submission is received by a committee, you cannot publish or disclose it to any other person unless or until the committee has authorised its publication. You cannot share your document until you hear from the committee that it can be published” (Source)
My submission remained unpublished as of 2 August 2023, and so I sent the following email:
Attn: Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

“My submission to the current Inquiry has been with the Secretariat for two months now.

I appreciate the earlier advice from them regarding the large number of submissions that had been received, and the time taken to process them. 
Indeed I note that 185 submissions are now listed on your website. Most of these submissions were, however, presumably lodged subsequent to my own. I am somewhat puzzled by this as it would seem that processing the submissions in the order in which they were received, would be the fairest and most impartial approach to take.
Would you kindly confirm when I might anticipate my submission appearing online? Would you also please advise when further details regarding the proposed Brisbane forum will be made available?
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

On 4 August 2023 I was advised as follows:

“Thanks for your email. As my colleague mentioned, the processing of submissions is a manual one and each submission is considered individually. Publication of submission is ongoing, and will continue in the coming weeks.

Arrangements are also underway in relation to the Brisbane hearing, and further details will be published on the committee’s webpage prior to the hearing.”

That’s right, zero mention of the issue of the method of ordering re: the processing of submissions, nor was a date provided as to when my submission would appear online.

Why don’t they remove all doubt and simply state that if people choose to be critical of the current priorities of the Australian Human Rights Commission, then they shouldn’t even hope to have input into future policy formulation.

Hey, maybe I’m wrong. I hope I am. Let’s see shall we?

Update as of 15 August 2023: I attended a portion of today’s meeting in Brisbane during which I spoke to the Secretariat. I was (again) told that they would try to process my submission in the next 2-3 weeks. I have just written to the Chairman of the Inquiry expressing my disappointment.)

And thus the saga continues

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 3)

On 6 July 2023 the Government announced the name of the person who will take on Kate Jenkin’s previous role with the AHRC.

Here is the text from an article that appeared in ‘Women’s Agenda’:

“Professor Anna Cody is Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Professor Anna Cody has been appointed as Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The Dean of the School of Law at Western Sydney University has been selected to succeed Kate Jenkins, whose term as Sex Discrimination Commissioner ended in April. Professor Cody will join the Australian Human Rights Commission for a five-year term, beginning in September.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said Professor Cody was appointed as Commissioner following a merit-based selection process, and that she would bring with her a wealth of experience in advocating for women and fighting discrimination.

“Through her work in Community Legal Centres, on the Board of the Legal Aid Commission of NSW and her role now as Dean of the School of Law at Western Sydney University, Dr Cody has a deep understanding of the systemic discrimination Australian women still face,” Dreyfus said in a statement on Thursday.

Dreyfus said Professor Cody will be tasked with promoting and advancing the rights of Australians by tackling discrimination based on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and other protected attributes in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

She will also be integral in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s delivery of the Respect@Work: Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report (2020), first handed down by Kate Jenkins in 2020.

President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher, also welcomed Professor Cody to the high-profile role.

“Professor Cody’s extensive experience has brought her into contact with women and girls from diverse backgrounds and perspectives including First Nations women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, women with disability and LGBTQIA+ women,” Professor Croucher said.

“She will also play a pivotal role in implementing the significant Respect at Work reforms to prevent workplace sexual harassment.

“We are delighted to have someone of her calibre join the Commission to advance the work of gender equality and defend the rights of LGBTQIA+ people under the Sex Discrimination Act.””

Kind of light with regards to mentioning the existence of male humans? Sure was. And the same deficiency was replicated in all of the articles/media releases that I’ve seen thus far.

Fingers crossed that Ms Cody can and will subsequently provide a more open, balanced and insightful contribution to the human rights debate.

(Note: The first blog post in this series of articles can be found here)

See also:

Feminism’s workplace gulags, by Bettina Arndt (18 January 2024)

Landmark research study finds clear evidence of pro-women/anti-men bias (28 September 2023)

New sex discrimination commissioner urges wider lens to tackle inequality (12 September 2023)

Is BHP discriminating against men? by Bettina Arndt (15 August 2023) Note reference to the actions of the AHRC here

Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework (2023)

On 15 March 2023, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Attorney-General referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights the following matters for inquiry and report by 31 March 2024:

  • to review the scope and effectiveness of Australia’s 2010 Human Rights Framework and the National Human Rights Action Plan;
  • to consider whether the Framework should be re-established, as well as the components of the Framework, and any improvements that should be made;
  • to consider developments since 2010 in Australian human rights laws (both at the Commonwealth and State and Territory levels) and relevant case law; and
  • to consider any other relevant matters.

The committee invited submissions up to 1 July 2023 in relation to these matters.

Readers might wish to pause now to look at the relevant website.

A copy of my submission follows:

A submission to the Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework

Dear members of the Committee

Thank you for extending this opportunity to offer my thoughts in relation to the work of the Inquiry.

That item within the Terms of Reference that my submission primarily addresses is:

Whether existing mechanisms to protect human rights in the federal context are adequate and if improvements should be made, including:

  • to the remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights;
  • the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission;
  • the process of how federal institutions engage with human rights, including requirements for statements of compatibility”

It is my impression that the Australian Human Rights Commission exercises some, if not most, of its responsibilities through a lens of fashionable ‘woke’ assumptions, beliefs and ideologies, including those associated with gender feminism. I do not believe that this should be the case. I believe that the rights and the welfare of all substantial demographic groups within the Australian community should be equally and accurately acknowledged, valued and supported.

The online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.

Gender matters are most likely touched upon by all Commissioners, but the focus in this regard centres upon the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. All those staff appointed to this position have, to date, been female – which I believe to have been inappropriate.

I think I am correct in stating that at least the last two incumbents declared themselves to be determined and committed followers of feminist ideology. I would suggest that partly as a consequence of this, during that time no significant programs were undertaken by the Commission in which the primary focus was on the rights and welfare of men and boys. I have sought to clarify this belief via requests for confirmation addressed to the Commission, an example of which is provided on the final page of this submission.

I discuss this perceived gender bias at the commission in the following blog posts:

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 1)

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 2)

I note also the Commission’s submission to this current Inquiry wherein readers undertaking a word search on the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ will find 0 instances of the former, and yet 22 instances of the latter.

Still, things could be worse. Consider a recent Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade paper on the global theme of gender equality. The word ‘man’ features once in this document whereas ‘woman’ features 58 times

If my observation is correct then the question must be asked as to why such a marked imbalance – a clear example of actual sex discrimination – is considered to be acceptable. Feminists appear inclined to excuse double-standards like this on the basis of an assertion that women are substantially worse off than men, and have been for much of history. I reject such a view entirely, and if the relevant government agencies were willing to undertake the appropriate reporting then the actual situation regarding the genders might finally be made clearer for all. Instead, and for the time being, the widespread occurrence of Gamma Bias and of heads deeply buried in the sand shall continue to prevail.

Chart of the Day: For Every 100 Young Women in October 2021…. and ‘Equal Pay Day’ This Year Was March 15 — the Next ‘Equal Occupational Fatality Day’ Won’t Be Until September 18, 2032. These papers by Mark J. Perry provide USA data about men. Comparative data such as this should be produced and made available in Australia. This would help correct the plethora of gender-related misstatements such as those routinely addressed by, for example, the One in Three organisation.

How men are portrayed. Haw Haw Haw. The joke’s on us

#GenderEqualityWhenItSuits: A submission to the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012

The ongoing erosion of research and publication standards – aka fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

I further believe that those groups and individuals consulted by the Commission should not be filtered or excluded on the basis of the degree to which their beliefs happen to align with those of the Commissioners and their staff.

I would note that for several years now I have been blocked from accessing a social media account of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, although not the Twitter account operated by the Commission as a corporate entity. This blocking of information sources and alternative perspectives has become a common occurrence in pro-feminist web sites and/or news outlets. I believe this behaviour to be unhelpful and inappropriate, and doubly so in the case of publicly-funded organisations. This subject, and my associated dealings with the Human Rights Commission, are addressed in the following two blog posts:

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

Since when did it become acceptable for publicly-funded desk jockeys to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Female privilege checklist

Consider those organisations whose default position is one exemplified by a clear bias towards supporting women/girls. The Australian Human Rights Commission is just one of very many such examples, with more listed here. To my mind a better and fairer approach would involve a gender-neutral approach where support was allocated based on *actual* need as measured in a transparent and objective manner.

I wonder how the senior staff of these organisations rationalise their biased priorities. I assume they feel that it is justified as (in their minds) ‘women have it so much worse’/’men have it so much better’. Indeed feminists loudly proclaim the overwhelming privilege of being male. But what about female privilege?

I have seen lists such as the one below on a number of previous occasions, but this one is particularly detailed. I obtained it from the web site of Anti-feminism Australia, although clearly it originated in the U.S of A. You will note for example some references to ‘selective service’ (i.e. mandatory military draft).

Allow me at the outset to put forward a couple of disclaimers:

  • Not all of these points apply equally, or at all, in all countries. I have already mentioned the example of ‘selective service’ which does not apply in Australia.
  • While all of the points of privilege apply to and/or would be asserted by most feminists, the same could not be said to be true of all women.

A recurrent theme in this list is that of the rampant double-standards that are now applied in relation to men and women, a factor that is part and parcel of gender feminism.

I intend to ‘tweak’ the list with my own thoughts over coming months. I am interested to hear the views of others so please feel free to provide a comment to add further points to the list, or to dispute or amend anything already listed.

Oh and just to keep things ‘equal’, here is a Male Privilege Checklist that was apparently distributed at the University of Western Australia’s Orientation Day.

See also ‘I love my female privilege!‘ by Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch) (10 January 2017) and ‘The Female Privilege Checklist‘ by Karen Straughan (6 May 2011)

List of female privileges

1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.

2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.

3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.

4. Regardless of my mate value society has organised fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.

5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.

6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.

7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.

8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.

9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.

10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.

11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.

12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.

13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.

14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.

15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing discount because of my gender, or may avoid incarceration entirely. If I am very pretty and/or pregnant it will increase my discount.

16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.

17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behaviour is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defence for murdering that same husband.

18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalised for failing to do so.

19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.

20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly 100% of workplace fatalities.

21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.

22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.

23. Seven times as much jewellery will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.

24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.

25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.

26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes. (See this paper for example)

27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.

28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.

29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.

30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localised. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.

31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.

32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.

33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.

34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshalled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.

35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control 80% of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.

36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.

37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.

38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.

39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.

40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behaviour I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.

41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.

42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organisations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalised 30% of the time.

43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.

44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.

45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.

46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.

47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.

48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.

49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.

50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.

51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.

52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.

53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.

54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.

55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.

56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)

57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.

58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.

59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.

60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.

61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.

62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.

63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.

64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.

65. My gender makes up 53% of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.

66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.

67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.

68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).

69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.

70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.

71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.

72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.

73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.

74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.

75. Anytime I find an organisation just for men I can denounce it as sexism.

76. I believe that women should have organisations just for women.

77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an asshole.

78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.

79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.

80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.

81. I think that organisations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.

82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.

83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.

84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.

85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offence against all women.

86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.

87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.

88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.

89. I can criticise the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticise me or other women.

90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.

91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.

92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.

93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.

94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.

95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.

96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.

97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

See also:

18 Things Females Seem To Not Understand (Because, Female Privilege), by Mark Saunders (18 April 2014)

Felicitous feminism (23 July 2019) Article by Mark Dent

Feminist Privilege: Updated Master Post

Image

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

On privilege, respect, and entitlement

Since when did it become acceptable for publicly-funded desk jockeys to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Most public sector agencies, and no doubt many other organisations, develop and enforce policies to guide their employees in the appropriate use of social media. The focus of most such policies is to reduce the likelihood that employees will post something that compromises the organisation that they work for. Conversely, the main criticism of social media policies is their potential to muzzle employees from communicating freely with the public.

A study commissioned by the Australian Electoral Commission recognised that “social media afford(ed) new opportunities for engaging citizens in democratic processes” (p8), but warned that sites can “become ‘digital enclaves’ or ‘echo chambers’ for small groups of like-minded citizens who dominate discussion.” (p29)

Social media policies may make provision to block members of the public who post spam or abusive or threatening messages onto the Facebook page/Twitter stream/etc of the organisation in question.

Few social media policies, however, seem to address the issue of whether staff are allowed to block/ban or remove posts in relation to members of the public who post material that is not offensive, but which may embarass the individual/organisation and/or promote or reflect alternative ideologies or belief systems.

Granted, my research has been limited, but the sole exception I have come across thus far in the public sector is the ‘ACT Government Social Media Policy Guidelines‘. That policy includes the following clause:

“Openness and transparency should be the defaults, meaning blocking users on Twitter and locking Facebook groups designed for public interface is not advisable” (Source – refer page 27)

This topic recently reared its head as a result of my interaction with a government agency known as the Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’).

As readers of this blog would be aware, I maintain an ongoing interest in the operation of the AHRC (example). That being the case I periodically check the relevant social media accounts to maintain an awareness of what is being said and done, and occasionally to comment.

The other day I was surprised to discover this notice upon attempting to view the Twitter stream of the (now former) Sex-Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins:

Jenkins2

I looked at my most recent tweets to Ms Jenkins to see if I had inadvertently stepped over the line re: civility. This is what I found:

jenkins1

Fairly tame stuff, huh? As I expected. I challenge Ms Jenkins or anyone else I have communicated with to produce anything that they consider to be so offensive as to justify punitive action. I mean aside from generalised hurt feelings arising from transgressions against cherished ideology.

I’m both a tax-payer and a former public servant, and I would no sooner have binned correspondence from the public/hung up on people/etc than walk to work naked. And make no mistake, blocking constituents on social media is the current-day equivalent of such actions. How things have changed.

I wonder if such action is permissible for federal public servants under the existing legislative/regulatory framework? I wonder how commonly it occurs, and whether anyone actually knows?

I also wonder if the staff who engage in this type of systematic disengagement are more or less likely to hold particular ideological views? This PEW Research article, for example, found that the people most likely to block others on social media held consistent leftist/liberal views.

As I discussed in another blog post, this default position of silencing rather than engaging dissenting voices has become a hallmark of gender feminists.

It must be quite intoxicating to believe that your position is so right, and others so diabolically wrong, that dialogue with unbelievers is not just redundant but seemingly an affront to decency.

General guidelines for public sector staff,  in relation to engagement with the public including via social media, are set out in ‘APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice‘. It contains a number of provisions relevant to this issue such as:

2.2.3 The Directions about this Value require APS employees to engage effectively with the community, working actively to provide responsive, client-focused service delivery. <snip> Employees must also ensure that decisions and interactions with clients are objective and impartial, and in accordance with government policy.

4.5.7 <snip> employees should avoid partisan comment and ensure that their approach to speaking publicly about policies supports public confidence in the capacity of the APS to be impartial.

5.1.3 A real conflict of interest occurs where there is a conflict between the public duty and personal interests of an employee that improperly influences the employee in the performance of his or her duties.

(Postscript: Revised public service social media guidelines were released in August 2017)

The Australian Human Rights Commission comes under the oversight of the Australian Attorney-General. That being the case I approached that Department (the ‘AGD’) as follows:

“Today I noted that I had been blocked from accessing the Twitter stream of a senior member of staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Prior to this occurring I can confirm that I did not communicate in a manner that was abusive, threatening, etc (nor make an excessive number of posts for example) … actions that would reasonably justify being blocked or banned.
Such an action on the part of a senior public servant appears not just unprofessional, but amounts to censorship being applied to stakeholders simply on the basis of holding a dissenting viewpoint.
I am writing to you now to request details of the guidelines under which staff (or agencies themselves) within the AGD are permitted to ban or block members of the public from social media streams or pages. Specifically, is such an action even permissible in the absence of bad language, threats, etc?
I look forward to receiving your timely advice regarding this matter.”

The AGD subsequently replied:

“Thank you for contacting the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (the department). The department is not able to directly assist you. Your enquiry would be more appropriately directed to the Australian Human Rights Commission … “

The social media policy for the Human Rights Commission is provided here. The policy does not clearly state whether staff members are empowered to block people for reasons other than those specified therein – which I did not contravene.

I then directed relevant questions to the Australian Public Service Commission (‘APSC’) and the AHRC. In their initial response the AHRC directed me to their social media policy, which I had already indicated I had read. I replied:

“I am seeking an indication from you as to whether the Commission has either a policy or accepted practice whereby members of staff are empowered make
unillateral decisions to place blocks or bans on members of the public
seeking to access and engage with various online portals estatblished
by the AHRC.

As I indicated in my initial email, my focus is on situations where
there has been no clear contravention of the  standards of behaviour
set out in your policy.  I look forward to receiving your further advice on this matter.”

The subsequent response from the AHRC again directed me to their Social Media Policy. From that I think we can assume that they have either not understood the nature of my concern, or that such concerns are only to be addressed on an ad hoc basis.

In contrast I received useful feedback from Paul Casimir, Director Integrity, Employment Policy Group at the APSC:

“The Australian Public Service Commission has not developed guidance for APS agencies about the circumstances in which it would  be appropriate for an APS employee or an APS agency to block access to a Twitter feed or similar social media platform. This is a matter for individual agencies to consider in each case having regard to a number of factors including, but not limited to, the obligation under the Commissioner’s Directions to engage effectively with the community.

Where an APS employee has acted in a manner inconsistent with the APS Values or Code of Conduct that matter may be referred to the head of that agency for consideration as a potential breach of the Code of  Conduct.

However, it may also be relevant to you to know that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, is a statutory officer appointed under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As such, she is not an APS employee and is not bound by either the APS Code of Conduct or the APS Values in the way that APS employees are. The excerpts of your blog post from the APS Values and Code of Conduct In Practice do not apply to her.”

rightstalk-access-cropped

My own position on this matter? I don’t take Ms Jenkins gesture personally in the least. I do find it ironic, however, that someone whose job it is to protect rights should be so amenable to the removal of rights. Indeed the Commission is on record as asserting internet access to be a fundamental human right. The possibility that Ms Jenkins action was tainted with a degree of misandry is similarly repellent.

I believe that the sort of waspish and self-indulgent behaviour common to online feminist echo chambers is completely inappropriate when transposed to the digital portal of a public sector agency. In the latter situation the priority should not be shunning and shaming, but rather sharing and engaging. Such as approach should be consistently applied to all interested stakeholders – regardless of their ideological preferences and/or the extent to which their views align with those of the relevant agency or individual managing the account.

(Postscript July 2023: I note the following statement in the AHRC Submission Policy dated January 2020 – “The Commission also encourages informal submissions via its social media and other online forums“)

(Postscript 7 December 2022: Another now-common practice by woke politicians/bureaucrats/NGO reps is to elect to prevent Twitter readers to submit comments unless authorised to do so (example provided by Queensland politician Shannon Fentiman)

(Postscript 13 October 2018: Should politicians be allowed to block voters on social media?)

(Postscript 10 July 2019: ‘Ocasio-Cortez Sued for Blocking People on Twitter‘)

Postscript 7 August 2019: ‘High court rules public servants can be sacked for political social media posts‘. Interesting

Here’s an emerging initiative in the UK – a proposed petition to have their parliament consider this issue of citizens being blocked by public servants on social media. To access the petition related to the text below please click here and here (31 May 2022)

Free Speech Union Wins Six-Figure Settlement For Sacked Civil Servant (28 May 2023) And here’s how things look a further further steps down the pathway we are now on here in Australia

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too

In an earlier blog post I briefly examined a number of pro-feminist organisations in Australia, noting (in part) the extent of public funding received by each. My post on the Domestic Violence Industry also identified another substantial sump for both government funding and private donations.

Despite the fact that I only scratched the surface in relation to identifying such organisations, the extent of state and federal funding involved already amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone could tally up all the public funds that are directed towards the welfare of women/girls? And then go through a similar exercise in relation to funding for men/boys. To what extent do you think the two amounts would be comparable?

Well, until 2013 the Australian federal government did something a little similar. It was called the Women’s Budget Statement. I’m not sure why it was terminated, but perhaps it was found that the data it provided was unreliable and/or otherwise unhelpful in comparison to the annual cost of compiling the Statement. Another possibility was that it identified so much expenditure directed towards women that it’s value as a sop to the feminist lobby was eclipsed by the potential it posed for an angry voter backlash.

(Newsflash: It’s back … Women’s Budget Statement 2021-22), Budget Statement 2022-23 and 2023-24)

In Wales (U.K) someone did the maths and found that women’s groups/causes were handed 77 times as much funding as were men’s groups/causes.

By way of background here are some links to historical information concerning the previous version/s of the Women’s Budget Statement:

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/grb_sharpbroomhill_australia_updf_final_copy_copy.pdf

http://www.gender-budgets.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=112

http://apo.org.au/research/budget-2014-15-gender-lens

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2013/dfh035_13_budget_tagged.pdf (Women’s Budget Highlights as mentioned in this article)

What prompted me to write this post today was the publication of ‘Gender neutral policies are a myth: why we need a women’s budget‘, by academic Miranda Stewart. I would recommend taking a moment now to read that article and the readers comments that follow it (or at least those that were not removed by the moderator).

Miranda thinks that the community would benefit from the re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement. The author justifies this gynocentric bias, at least in part, on the existence of the much-discredited gender pay gap. I believe it would be far more equitable and effective (as a policy development tool) if there was one combined document that considered the impact of federal expenditure on both men and women.

Another point of difference between what Miranda has in mind, and what I envisage, relates to the nature of the information provided. Miranda wants to see an assessment of the economic impact, on women, of a wide range of government policies. I am not convinced how accurately such impacts could be assessed, nor to the extent it could be kept free of the gender bias and ideological tweaking that is now rampant across the Australia public service.

I would be satisfied with something simpler, merely a listing of specific programs or allocations that were directed towards (or could be determined to benefit) alternately either boys/men or girls/women. This in itself would be a difficult task, as many such allocations are hidden, for example, deep within departmental budgets.

In other cases, allocations which would appear to be gender-neutral could be determined on closer analysis to strongly favor one gender in relation to the other. An example of this would be funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission.

This suggestion is noted in another article (refer point 5), although I think Claire Moore, Shadow Minister for Women, probably has different priorities in mind.

So where would one make a start on creating such a spreadsheet? Well I’ve already mentioned the various organisations listed in my blog post about misandric agencies. We could expand that initial list by considering each of the members of the Equality Rights Alliance, Australia’s largest network of organisations with an interest in advancing women’s equality. From then on it would be a matter of relentless burrowing through budget papers seeking relevant allocations.

The intention would be to combine the total funding received by each organisation and compare that figure with total annual funding for boys/men’s groups and issues. Although larger in magnitude I imagine that the women’s budget would be somewhat easier to compile given that there are specific ministries and sections with agencies that deal with women’s issues.

I would wager that there is absolutely no chance that the expenditure ratio would match the ratio of males/females in the Australian population, with an overwhelming bias towards the welfare of girls/women.

As an aside bear in mind that men, both individually and through the corporate entities they own, contribute far more than 50% of the government’s income. Click across to this blog post and scroll down to ‘taxation’ to see some relevant sources. Would it not be more equitable if the default setting was that half of government expenditure was subsequently utilised to support the interests/welfare of men and boys?

I believe that such a process of financial analysis would not only identify a massive and inequitable gendered imbalance in government funding, but it would also identify enormous waste and duplication. I wonder just how many indulgences like this are out there waiting to be uncovered?

If I am correct and there is a substantial favouring of females over males, how can this be justified? Barring the absence of incontrovertible evidence of overwhelmingly greater need, across the board, this would be indicative of neither gender equality nor prudent governance.

Certainly priority should be given to the area/s of greatest genuine need. And of course there will be areas where women’s needs are greater than mens (and vice versa). Thus note that I am not suggesting for a moment that one would seek to religiously apply a 50% split to every government program in Australia.

But humor me and suppose that a detailed and objective analysis did find that vastly more support was accorded to women/girls across all of government? And that meanwhile funding was urgently required to meet the demonstrated needs of men/boys?

Let’s find out. Otherwise, sorry, not good enough. Not by a long shot.

See also:

Gender responsive budgeting‘. Latest material from the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (November 2023)

The Australian Government’s Women’s Budget Statement 2023-24 intentionally erased the one third of victims of intimate partner violence who are male (May 2023) Tweet issued by the One in Three group.

$2.1 Billion Budget Package for Women and Girls (30 March 2022)

Federal budget: Katy Gallagher announces abolition of ‘pretty punitive’ ParentsNext program (5 May 2023) “What Katy Gallagher has declared as the best federal budget for women in more than 40 years“. And for men/boys? The sound of crickets.

Is it time Australia had a Men’s Budget? (28 October 2022)

The women’s budget is headed in the right direction. But the policies still need work and The women’s budget statement signals a massive shift in how federal budgets are formulated and framed (26 October 2022)

Budget details released on 25 October 2022, with a plethora of programs for women. The word ‘men’ does not appear once in this statement, but #GenderEquality! … blow whistle and wave streamers, blah blah.

Women’s Budget Statement 2022/23 (29 March 2022) and Creating opportunities for women to fulfill their potential

Grants and Funding – Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – An example of one of almost countless sources of public funding for feminists and other women (November 2021)

2021-labor-womens-budget-statement.pdf (alp.org.au)

Dear Josh, here’s what women really want from the budget (3 May 2021) “Last year’s budget was widely criticised for leaving women behind“. Really? Not by anyone I know, that’s for darn sure.

Now even the budget is a tool of the Coalition’s evil oppression of women. Apparently … (23 April 2021)

‘Gender ignorant’ treasurers leave Australia lagging behind in women’s equality, equity advocate says | Gender | The Guardian (29 January 2021) Read about the feminist version of reality

Backing Aussie startups owned and led by women (7 December 2020) 

ICMI20: Eccentrik Hat – “Why Men Need Help And Why Feminism Won’t Help Them” – YouTube (18 November 2020) Hello!

Payne defends budget measures as gender neutral (19 October 2020)

Some information posted on Twitter about provision for women in the 2020 budget

Treasurer, a tiny $240 million for ‘women’s economic security’ is insulting (6 October 2020) Another typical feminist article that makes no effort to provide context for the claims made based on a comparative analysis of benefits solely for men & boys.

Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back, especially now (30 September 2020)

Who’ll most benefit from tax cuts? Rich men. We need gender-responsive budgeting, now (16 September 2020) And once again, ‘applying the gender lens’ means exclusively focusing on real & imagined budgetary impacts on women

Women, older Australians were most likely to receive the Morrison government’s $750 stimulus payments (16 September 2020)

Calls for female-focused budget as women face financial ‘gender disaster’ (16 August 2020)

How the Australian Budget process is failing women (2 April 2019). Apparently we need “Gender responsive budgeting” and “women’s economic needs demand more frequent and intense intervention”. Yes, and for men/boys … well, oh, let’s not go there, right?

Women’s Economic Security Statement (19 November 2018)

“A priority for the Australian Government is to create the right economic settings for women to help them participate in work, increase their economic security and give them meaningful choices about their lives.”
 

The Queensland government produced a Women’s Budget Statement (6 July 2017)

Women’s group call for gender aware budget (22 May 2017) Australia. They are not calling for a “gender aware budget”, they are calling for a female-aware budget … no mention whatsoever is made of looking at the impact of the budget on men. More of the same here and here.

Gender Lens on the Budget 2017/18 (undated) Australia. We need something like this to look at the impact of the budget on men (shame this one didn’t address both genders)

Interview with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop (24 January 2017) The financial analysis I spoke of earlier would need to encompass foreign aid, which is increasingly gender-focused towards women/girls.

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video. On the issue of the gendered impact of the current taxation regime see also this blog post

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (8 September 2016) Wouldn’t it be interesting to run a rigorous financial analysis here in Australia to see if the same pattern was evident?

Despite the rhetoric, this election fails the feminist test (28 June 2016), by Eva Cox

Women left behind by a budget that does little to redress inequality, by Eva Cox (5 May 2016) Well if women were left behind in the Budget Eva, what say you about men and their issues?

The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand (2013)

womensagenda.com.au/…/each-budget-used-to-have-a-gender-impact-statement-we-need-it-back-especially-now

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 2)

My initial post regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) can be found here. This post addresses the performance of the AHRC following the departure of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, in September 2015. A further post addresses developments following the commencement of Kate Jenkins replacement, Anna Cody, in September 2023.

There was a considerable delay in appointing a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner by the time Kate Jenkins commenced her role. In the interim several articles on the topic emerged, these penned by feminist journalists with notable anti-male credentials (see here and here).

Sex discrimination commissioner job still vacant as government continues to stall (6 January 2016) This article again implies that the role is purely to advocate for women, and assumes that a women will be selected for the role.

Nothing particularly substantial occurred in relation to gender issues at the Commission during this period of vacuum. That which did occur gave no cause for optimism that the AHRC’s anti-male bias had softened with the departure of Ms Broderick.

This November 2015 article discusses the finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award. Note how many of the finalists worked to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. None it would seem.

This December 2015 speech by Megan Mitchell, Children’s Commissioner, began on a relatively gender-neutral note only to then introduce material which signalled feminist bias:

“Previous studies have also estimated that over 20% of children and young people have witnessed violence against a mother or step mother”

Whilst correct, this omits the important fact that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as have seen their dad hit their mum. This is addressed in the ‘Misinformation’ page of the One in Three organisation’s web site:

“23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather” (Source)

Further gender bias was reported in the mainstream media on the same day in the following manner:

Children’s Rights Commissioner urges national focus on children affected by domestic violence (7 December 2015)

“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. 

Now back to Megan’s speech, in which she introduced Rosie Batty, Ms Mitchell was also conveniently silent about the fact that most child abuse/neglect/filicide is perpetrated by women. True to feminist form, gender is only relevant or notable when men are the primary perpetrators of harm.

Finally, on 11 February 2016 it was announced that Kate Jenkins had been appointed the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder if there were any men amongst the seven people interviewed for the position? Media commentator Andrew Bolt had something to say about the appointment of yet another woman to the role in ‘End this sex discrimination now‘.

Far more needs to be done to close the gender pay gap in Australia.” (OMG, did she really say that?) Actually Kate, the only thing that needs to be done is that people (read: feminists) should be told to stop misrepresenting it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. A good first step would be reading my blog post.

This article suggests that Kate plans to continue along the sexist path of her predecessor. Feminist high-fives all round.

This page, from within the AHRC’s web site, is aptly entitled ‘About Sex Discrimination’. And it sure is.

jenkins

The ABC interview that follows was likewise dispiriting as Ms Jenkins said she would first like to get out to “talk to women, families …”. Go on Kate, you can say it … ‘men’ is not a rude word. Men did rate a mention later, but only in the context of more ‘damseling’ (appeal to & then exploit men’s chivalry) to win support for initiatives that further enhance benefits for women.

This was followed by more obligatory feminist parroting in relation to domestic violence (caused by gender inequality, but oops what about lesbian relationships Kate?), and the gender wage gap <facepalm>. Just brimful of fresh ideas.

#ICYMI Watch: Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner @Kate_Jenkins_ outline her plan for the role #auspol https://t.co/480sShMTuc

— ABC News 24 (@ABCNews24) February 14, 2016

In ‘What should the new sex discrimination commissioner do? Make ‘women’s issues’ everyone’s issues’ the author suggests a #HeForShe approach, because “like it or not, men are making the lion’s share of the decisions in this country“.  Not terribly original given Ms. Broderick’s much-trumpeted ‘Champions of Change’ project.

Underlying Lauren’s article is an assumption that either (1) there are no ‘men’s issues’, or (2) men’s issues aren’t significant, or (3) that it’s not the Commissioner’s job to address them.

Sooo let’s get men (who have been told repeatedly to butt out of gender-related discussions) to participate more and get behind making things better for women.

Further evidence of the ongoing gender bias at the AHRC was provided in their submission to the 2016 Federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (refer submission 41). In that submission it was implied that all perpetrators of domestic violence were male, that males faced no negative discrimination or stereotyping, and that all victims of these behaviours or attitudes were female or transgender. There is not one sentence in that submission that suggests that the AHRC considers that men are worthy of any support, sympathy or compassion whatsoever.

Kate commenced duties in April 2016 and duly fronted up to give a presentation at the National Press Club. A flurry of pro-feminist articles followed with no suggestion whatsoever that mens/boys issues would receive one iota of attention from the Commissioner. Oh, but she has plenty of drum-banging planned in relation to the <groan> gender pay gap. Here’s one of those articles:

I didn’t imagine we would still need a sex discrimination commissioner in 2016′

I note that the Commission has added some pages to their web site in relation to Family and Domestic Violence, plus links to various articles presenting the feminist perspective on this issue. This page for example provides no corresponding statistics in relation to male victimisation, with its sole reference to that component of DV being the old feminist “overwhelming majority” mantra.

On 3 August 2016 I discovered I had been blocked from Ms Jenkins Twitter account in the absence of any threatening or abusive communication on my part. As both a tax-payer and former public servant I find this action both extraordinary and wholly inappropriate (see this post).

In ‘Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men‘ (15 September 2016) we learnt that Gillian Triggs has allowed the ABS to hire only female interviewers as “men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women.” Meanwhile they ignore the flip-side that male victims would be more likely to tell their stories to male interviewers – thus perpetuating the statistical erasure of male victimisation.

Please also read the related media release from the ‘One in Three’ organisation, as well as this article from Jasmin Newman.

On 12 October 2016 Kate Jenkins was interviewed about her three top priorities. I wonder how far down the list we would need to go before finding anything in relation to the welfare of men/boys? In fact I wonder if we would find any such item/s anywhere on that list?

kate

kateandclem

The Hunting Ground & the campus rape study

Now in the light of all the preceding evidence, one would hope that the AHRC would consider the most appropriate course of action to be a gradual pulling-back from their position of anti-male bias. But no, they doubled-down instead through their involvement with a project that sought to justify, and to continue, their focus on women’s rights through the feminist lens.

The images above show Kate proudly promoting book sales for misandrist radfem Clementine Ford, and then applauding the screening of much-debunked feminist anti-male hit-piece ‘The Hunting Ground‘ (article/article). What a shame she couldn’t wield her influence to have the ABC screen The Red Pill. The cash injection provided by the team behind ‘The Hunting Ground’ gave rise to an unfortunate perception of bias and conflicted interest.

It was no accident that the promotion of ‘The Hunting Ground’ coincided with the conducting of the campus sexual assault survey, and the subsequent release of the results in July 2017 as discussed in the following articles:

Universities Australia defends $1m donation to ‘independent’ campus rape survey (2 November 2016)

Hardly on the hunt for facts (18 June 2017)

Manufacturing Australia’s next epidemic (26 July 2017) Video. First promote the (debunked) film ‘The Hunting Ground’ then a survey (with self-selected respondents) and now for the hysteria and demands for punitive action. Against … drumroll … men.

Mattress girl saga a warning to unis on sexual assault cases, by Bettina Arndt (29 July 2017)

Advocacy journalism (31 July 2017) Video

No rape crisis on our campuses: Official (2 August 2017)

No rape culture at Australian universities: No Rape Culture at Australian Uni’s: Even Seinfeld Knows AHRC Report is a Joke (4 August 2017) Video featuring Mark Latham

Flawed sexual harassment report undermines the change it seeks (12 August 2017) When even other feminists come out and say this study stinks, you know it’s bad

Restructuring the Australian Defence Forces

Army refuses men, WTF? (12 August 2017) Video

Army studying ‘how women shop’ for recruitment (12 August 2017)

The Royal Australian Human Rights Commission Air Force (2 August 2017)

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer review assessment of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States every five years. Australia’s next review will take place in January 2021. The Commission contributes to Australia’s UPR alongside civil society organisations. Take a look at the ‘fact-sheets’ that the Commission has prepared in relation to various key issues. Let’s start with ‘Gender Equality‘ shall we? Would it surprise you to know that there are no issues related to the welfare of men & boys?

See also:

Kate Jenkins’ plan for her successor as sex discrimination commissioner (10 April 2023) Not one word said regarding things to be done for men/boys. Nothing

Who will be the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner? We should hear any day now. And please not another radfem (2 April 2023)

Taxpayer-funded video for primary school kids that talks about pansexuality is slammed as ‘woke gender ideology’ (28 December 2022)

Alcohol a major problem for women in the workplace: Jenkins (7 September 2022) Whilst Jenkins’ Canberra report confirmed a significant level of harassment *of* men, this article ignores actual and/or potential male victimhood. Why? 

A Human Rights Based Approach to Men’s Rights (28 June 2022) Video presentation

Australia embarrassed on world stage over downgrade threat (7 April 2022) If slack in one area of function, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re slack in another.

Bettina Arndt: “The great purge rolls on” (3 December 2021)

Open letter to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission – Gender Balancing (wordpress.com) (20 May 2021) Detailed submission to the NZ equivalent of the AHRC, and the extent of pro-fem gender bias present in that agency.

Reappointment of Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Age Discrimination Commissioner (1 April 2021)

Note this page in the Commission’s web site in the Education section, and how ‘Women’s Rights’ is a designated ‘Hot Topic’ whilst men’s/boys rights is excluded. Whilst ‘Homelessness’ is also listed as a hot topic, the gender differences in those afflicted is simply ignored.

Beijing +25 and the future of women’s rights (4 December 2020) Try word-searching  this document and see how many times the words ‘men’ and ‘boys’ appears (= zero).

Bettina Arndt reports on a new survey on sexual harassment in the retail sector undertaken by the AHRC. Nearly a third (29 %) of men report harassment, compared to 46% of women but this sizeable male group is rarely even mentioned. And no men interviewed about their experiences (30 October 2019)

At a session entitled ‘Smashing the Patriarchy!’ at the 2019 National Community Legal Centres Conference, Kate Jenkins served on “a diverse panel of powerful women as they reflect on their own experiences and work. The discussion will include possibilities for collective action, ways to challenge existing systems of power and patriarchy and the rights and experiences of women across Australia. This plenary will provide an opportunity to discuss key issues such as sexual harassment; the fight to de-criminalise abortion; systemic racism and discrimination experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and Muslim women …

Online abuse against women on Human Rights Council agenda (22 June 2018) No mention regarding harassment of men/boys … that facet of this problem appears to be seen as a non-issue. For some actual stats see my post here.

Face the Facts: Gender Equality 2018 –  This web page and linked sources appear to have been written on the assumption that gender equality and women’s rights are synonymous. The rights or issues of men & boys are simply not mentioned.

Unleashing the power of gender equality (November 2017) by Kate Jenkins. Men and boys are essentially missing in action in this document. Word search on the term ‘men’ then scroll through each of the 89 mentions to quickly confirm where the author’s interest (bias) lies.

‘Perverse outcomes’: How Australia is failing sexual harassment victims (18 October 2017) Ms Jenkins is interviewed on the issue of workplace harassment, but appears to avoid any mention of male victimisation/female perpetration. The author, Gay Alcorn, did thankfully at least note some comparative statistics.

It’s not just Hollywood problem: 1 in 4 Australian women have been sexually harassed at work (16 October 2017) Here Kate jumps on the Harvey Weinstein bandwagon. Oh, and wherefore art thou female harassers? For they are mentioned nowhere in this one-sided male hit piece. Hmm, when someone only ever identifies perpetrators of one particular gender, that’s discrimination right?

Financial rewards provided only to women are “smart”, even when part-time and/or low income male workers also retire with low Superannuation balances. Little wonder feminists hate the term “Apex Fallacy”.

This doesn’t happen (6 October 2017)

Sex Discrimination Commissioner should get real‘, by Andrew Bolt (1 May 2017) Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott reacts to Kate Jenkins gender quota proposal here, with a related article by Miranda Devine here.

Australian report finds disturbing evidence of gender inequality | Women | The Guardian (8 March 2017) The three letters of ‘men’ appears 67 times in this article by Kate – count how many times it related to actual men (twice). And one of these times merely refuting the claim that there is no International Men’s Day. Oh please! Lame shot! It’s not recognised by the UN, and is ignored by the AHRC and most (if not all) Australian state & federal agencies.

“Some people are adamantly opposed to proactive initiatives to improve gender equality,” Jenkins said. “Other people truly don’t understand this is still problem for Australia.” Clearly many people don’t recognise the widespread bias shown towards men/boys as constituting gender inequality.

Application to conduct a female-only gym (November 2016) This application linked here primarily as it contains links to other earlier determinations regarding the issue of gender segregation.

A positive development at the New Zealand Human Rights Commission (24 March 2016) Seeing this I thought perhaps in that organisation that men’s rights were seen as important too. But after seeing this item, maybe they are little different from the AHRC in this regard.

Here’s a project that Kate Jenkins could tackle. It concerns the lack of ‘Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Men’ (6 March 2016)

See also: Since when did it become acceptable for public servants to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem – Prawn of the Patriarchy (fighting4fair.com)

Now try searching using ‘women’s rights’ instead. This is #GenderEqualityWhenItSuits (25 December 2021)
Nil response has been received by me as of July 2023

A separate post that addresses the issue of me being blocked from accessing Ms Jenkins Twitter stream can be found here)

George Brandis declines opportunity to address bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission

I have detailed my concerns about the level of bias reflected in the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission elsewhere in this blog. On 11 December 2014, I sent an email to the Hon George Brandis QC, Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate sharing my concerns and seeking his support:

“I write to you in your capacity as Attorney-General in which you are tasked with the oversight of the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

I am deeply concerned about what I perceive to be the application of biased and inappropriate priorities with regards to, in particular, the Commission’s role in addressing gender discrimination. I have detailed these concerns in the following blog post:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/promulgating-inequality/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

I believe that this situation may require your intervention in order to ease the Commission back onto the correct track – one that sees a heightened emphasis on striving for true gender equality and with a corresponding scaling back of the emphasis placed on pursuing the ideology of gender feminism.

I would consequently appreciate you reading the linked paper and providing me with your views in relation to the matters raised therein.”

On 2 March 2015, after a further approach from me, I received the following reply:

“Thank you for your email of 11 December 2014 to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, concerning the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Attorney-General has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

I have noted your comments in relation to Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission was established under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to conciliate complaints of discrimination and provide advice to the Government on human rights issues. The Commission falls within the Attorney General’s portfolio responsibility, but it is independent from the Government.

The Australian Government supports the important role that the Commission plays in protecting and promoting human rights in Australia. That does not mean that the Government necessarily agrees with all the statements made by Commissioners, who do not speak for the Government in performing their functions. Commissioner Broderick is free to express her views, as all Australians are free to express their opinions.

If you have concerns that you wish to raise about the operations of the Australian Human Rights Commission or any of its Commissioners, you may raise these directly with the President of the Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs. Professor Triggs’ address is:

Professor Gillian Triggs President Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001

The Attorney-General cannot intervene in the Commission’s handling of individual queries or complaints.

Thank you for taking the time to write about your concerns.”

Senator Brandis’ inaction is unfortunate but perhaps understandable given the currently torturous interaction between the Government and the AHRC, as detailed in the following articles:

‘A fatal perception of bias’: George Brandis admits he asked Gillian Triggs to resign (24 February 2015)

Human Rights Commission and Gillian Triggs not above reproach (27 February 2015)

Row involving Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs puts careers on the line (28 February 2015)

Opinion: Human Rights boss should be the last to cast the stone in relation to child protection (1 March 2015)

These recent developments involving Ms. Broderick’s boss suggest an entrenched culture within the Commission whereby it has become accepted that AHRC priorities shall be determined by political and ideological bias rather than on the basis of statutory responsibility alone.

** UPDATE: VIEW AND SIGN MY PETITION HERE  **

Two days each year to celebrate men

International Men’s Day

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead and savor the outrage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia entry for International Men’s Day

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

International Men’s Day UK

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

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

Goodbye Spectator (21 November 2020) UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Male feminist tears over #InternationalMensDay (18 November 2015)

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

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

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

Townsville City Council celebrates IMD (22 November 2014)

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

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

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

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

mensday

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

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

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

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

Resistance to International Men’s Day (undated)

The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the Australian Human Rights Commission provide some information in their web site to mark International Men’s Day (as they do every year for International Women’s Day). The response was this was not possible due to resourcing constraints. Now, many years later, there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. A truly pathetic effort from a very gender-biased organisation.

Image

Fathers Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Father’s Day ambushed (8 September 2016) NZ

In praise of fathers, mostly (17 June 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

Melanie McDonagh: Why International Women’s Day is embarrassing (11 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Image