Gender reversal: This article on employee injury/death would have taken a different line were the victims female

The article I want to discuss in this post is If you don’t have a beer you’re not a man’ – rural workplaces made more dangerous by drugs and alcohol, by feminist academic Julaine Allan.

The author begins by pointing out the high levels of death/injury that occur in the farming, forestry and mining sectors. These are of course sectors which feature an overwhelmingly male workforce.

The author states that a high level of substance abuse is associated with the relevant employees and workplaces, and that this is a contributing factor in the incidence of workplace death/injury. Further, she notes that the relevant workplaces tend to be harsh, lonely and isolated, and that this might encourage substance abuse by way of people seeking relief.

Well that’s all reasonable enough, but then the author goes further and implies (as is evident from the title) that masculinity is a major factor behind the worrying statistics.

No, not the fact that the work being undertaken is inherently dangerous, and carried out in challenging environments. Nope, she sheets home a significant portion of the blame to men, both individually and collectively.

It’s at this point that I’m thinking, “hey, if this was about deaths/injuries in a female-dominated sector, I think the emphasis might be quite a bit different.” Even assuming female staff also demonstrated behaviour that elevated their level of exposure to risk.

I’m struggling to think of a suitable analogy. Perhaps if we run with the situation of the many women working in nursing or education in isolated areas. For the purpose of this discussion assume are likewise affected by high rates of injury, as indeed might well be the case. Can you imagine a male researcher suggesting that their femininity was a contributing factor to deaths or injuries? Because I can’t.

No, more likely, instead of victim-blaming there would be terms used like gender death gap, and a discussion of broader social forces and how these contributed to the situation. The thing that annoys me most about this article is what seems to be an unstated acceptance that doing this type of work is mens lot in life, and that this somehow renders discussion of the ‘big-picture’ redundant.

But back to men working in farming, forestry and mining. Given that the author has chosen to play the gender card, then why not discuss why the dirty and dangerous jobs are still left to men. And why the men took those jobs, whether it be to support families in the face of very limited employment opportunities for people of the relevant demographic. Note that this problem has been exaccerbated by the feminist push to have more women enter/return to the workforce. And what of the single men? Perhaps working in high-risk roles represents their only chance to accumulate assets needed to attract a wife in a era of rampant hypergamy.

Perhaps if they introduced gender quotas in these sectors then maybe the resultant mixed workforce might ameliorate these factors, at least a little. At the very least it would share the deaths/injuries more evenly between the genders. But heck no, a feminist suggesting gender quotas to encourage women into uncomfortable/unpleasant jobs? As if! A little too much gender equality for that idea to ever fly.

So no, rather than taking an empathetic and holist view of the matter, the author opts to take a free kick for feminism and paints a simplistic ‘boys being boys’ motif.

These are men dying or being maimed, to supply products that create the comfortable environment in which feminists can drink $6 lattes whilst bemoaning invented elements of a mythical patriarchy.

And now these are men dying or being maimed as fodder for the feminist machine. A half page in ‘The Conversation‘, and perhaps a well-paid gig for some ideologically-sound marketing company (think, ‘awareness’ campaign).

This article would have been so much better were the author enough of a professional to either avoid the gratuitous addition of gender politics, or to provide a more complete and unbiased account of men doing the best they can under the circumstances they find themselves in. And with this more fulsome account concluding with a road map to a better place for both the men in question, and their families.


Regarding online harassment

The internet has provided a haven for those inclined to strike out at people in anonymity and usually without fear of repercussion.

The purpose of this blog post is not to propose solutions to this problem, but rather to take a step back and call for an objective, measured and truthful discussion of the relevant issues.

There’s no doubt that women are often targets of online abuse, although there does appear to be a tendency towards embellishment and exaggeration with regards to the nature and extent of such abuse. The author of this article, for example, would have us believe that life on the internet is unbearable for women due to the oppressive behaviour of male trolls.

What is generally absent from articles on this subject is an honest admission that a considerable amount of online abuse is directed at men, and that a substantial proportion of those perpetrating abuse are women/girls. Have a look at the information provided in the chart below, extracted from a 2014 paper by PEW Research. (see 2017 updated here)

Why do so many commentators and ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge these significant points?

Surely not the desire to support the feminist narrative of women as the perpetual victims of an unyielding male patriarchy?

The findings of a survey by Norton  painted a different picture. Unfortunately however the results were compromised by poor methodology, a common problem with pro-feminist research. In this instance the researchers failed to include questions about male victimisation via online abuse.

So why has this issue garnered a large and increasing amount of attention in recent years? Are people becoming nastier? Is that nastiness becoming more gendered in nature?

There are a number of significant factors that need to be considered here.

Firstly there is the thorny issue as to what constitutes actual online abuse or harassment. One end of the spectrum is marked by behaviour that is criminal in nature and intent, for example clear threats to commit violence to the targeted individual.

Further along the scale one encounters behaviour that does not involve actual threats, but is so persistent and pervasive as to be genuinely threatening in nature.

At the other end are interactions that are little more than assertive dissent in relation to a particular idea or opinion being put forward.

More and more we are witnessing the definition of terms such as online abuse and ‘trolls’ expanded to include behaviour and people who seem undeserving of these pejoratives. Also troubling is the fact that the same types of behaviour decried as abuse or trollish when used by conservative/non-feminists, are seen as acceptable or even noble when used by feminists/leftists/SJW. This issue of finessing definitions to suit a narrative is discussed in another blog post.

Why do people, particularly in this case feminists/SJW, so readily misinterpret online communication in this way? I’d suggest that in part it is a deliberate strategy, whilst at other times simply a misunderstanding.

It has been suggested that feminists interpret relatively innocuous messages as hurtful because online communication is a forum where women are truly treated as equals. Men speak to women online as men would speak to other men in real life. It is said that many women are unaccustomed to this gloves-off banter, and interpret it as vindictive rather than as heartfelt and direct. I believe that there is an element of truth to this, although again it is but one of several factors in the mix.

One other reason for exaggerated claims of online hate and abuse is that it provides an excuse to instigate progressively harsher and more intrusive forms of censorship. Censorship is a recurring theme in real-world feminist tactics, and one which I address in another blog post.

Turning again to feminist research, let’s examine a project called the University of NSW ‘Cyberhate Project‘, which is being supported by the Australian Research Council (‘ARC’) with AUD$372,095 of public funding.

I was more than a little concerned to learn that this research project will only survey women. That looks an awful lot like a research project designed with a particular conclusion already firmly in mind. I immediately took this up with the ARC, who dismissed my complaint regarding this obvious ideological bias in the following manner:

“Proposals for ARC funding undergo a rigorous peer review process involving experts in their fields who assess the quality of projects and the capabilities and achievements of applicants.  The planning and  management of ARC-funded research projects is a matter for individual researchers and institutions (in accordance with ARC funding agreements).”

I’m left wondering just how many of those peers were likely either fellow feminists or sympathisers. Hands up who else thinks that this might not be the most effective vetting process in the case of a polarised issue such as this?

(As an aside, consider the suffocating anti-male gender bias evident in this article by another recipient of ARC funding. Is there a pattern here?)

The architect of the Cyberhate Project, Emma Jane, wrote an article entitled ‘Rape Threats and Cyberhate? Vote no to the new digital divide‘, published in a current affairs site called The Conversation.

As is virtually de rigeur at The Conversation, readers comments that were deemed unsupportive of the feminist author’s position were quickly excised. In this case that amounted to at least one in four comments. Of the many I read before they disappeared, none of these were in the least bit threatening or abusive.

I posted one of those comments removed by the moderator. It simply stated:

“Emma, Is it not a fact that men are subject to more online harassment than are women? Is it not a fact that many of the perpetrators of online abuse are women? … Might it therefore not be more accurate to say that the real online divide is one between trolls and the rest of us, rather than between men and women as your paper implies?”

Given that men are subject to a considerable amount of online harassment, they should not be excluded from research on this subject. The fact that the finger of blame is often pointed at men alone, when we know full well that many women perpetrate online harassment/abuse, does tend to stick in this writer’s craw. One might consider at this point the example of Australian radfem Clementine Ford.

As with domestic violence and various other topics, feminists persist in labelling issues as “gendered” when they are not, in order to create support for their global war-against-women conspiracy.


What now follows is a collection of links to articles that provide various perspectives on the issue of online harassment/abuse:

‘How I took the female cyber bully who used Facebook to ruin my life to court. And won’ (13 November 2017)

Police drop investigation as story of racist death threats against Calgary trustee candidate unravels (14 October 2017)

Caleb Bond: ‘We can’t disregard the viciousness of girls’ (11 September 2017)

Woman charged for posting revenge porn after break-up (27 July 2017)

Male Tory MP’s got most social media abuse (24 July 2017)

Men as Likely To Be Harassed Online as Women (18 July 2017)

Women online are getting used to cyber hate. They need to get used to reporting it (18 July 2017) Emma Jane is at it again, viz. men suffer no online abuse/men are the problem/men have no right to protest online abuse/etc

2017 update to Pew’s 2014 online harassment survey shows, again, that men receive more harassment online than women (12 July 2017) Reddit discussion thread

Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy (December 2017 edition of ‘Personality and Individual Differences’) This study asserts that most trolls are male, but I suspect that the findings may have been compromised by one or more of the following factors:

* small sample size with 2/3 of respondents being women, and who were possibly self-selected
* incorrect assumptions (by survey respondents) regarding the gender of trolls
* differing and possibly gender-based judgments as to what constitutes trolling

The media dangerously misuses the word ‘trolling’ (3 July 2017) This article conveniently neglects to mention that this ‘problem’ has been primarily brought about through misusing the term ‘trolling’ to describe reasonable dissent against the prevailing leftist/feminist narrative.

Reddit mensrights discussion thread related to the June 2015 article in The Conversation (as mentioned earlier)

Revenge porn now affects more than one in five Australians (7 May 2017) with further detail provided in this article in ‘The Conversation’. Note how they try so hard to keep pushing the ‘men are worse’ line, even when the figures don’t support it.

Survey finds men and women equal victims of revenge porn attacks (4 May 2017) Australia

Women troll on dating apps just as often as men (13 March 2017) Australia

FactCheck Q&A: are there laws to protect against ‘revenge porn’ in Australia? (8 March 2017)

Jealous ex-girlfriend who posted revenge porn online threatened former partner’s new lover in terrifying 18-month harassment campaign (8 February 2017) UK. No jail time despite it being her second offence.

Men and Women Are Equally Vulnerable to Online Domestic Abuse: Study (19 January 2017)

Scheming revenge porn mistress avoids jail (13 January 2017)

This one-click ‘rape threat generator’ aims to counter online misogyny (6 January 2017) Another unhelpful and biased offering from Emma Jane

Masculinity and Misogyny in the Digital Age (2016)

Scorned woman uses cop database to harass lover (21 December 2016)

TV star sentenced for stalking market trader she ‘became obsessed with’ (19 December 2016)

Bryce Cartwright was the target of social media posts from an ex-partner (13 December 2016) More on this incident here

Australia tackles revenge porn with new eSafety Commission (23 November 2016) AFAIK this agency’s brief was initially gender-neutral but it quickly assumed a pro-feminist stance, making its focus the online harassment of women and girls.

Charity worker who swapped sex texts with her boss posted revenge porn on his wife’s business page after he dismissed her (8 November 2016)

Real estate agent, 46, ‘sent graphic nude photos of herself to her ex-boyfriend’s teen son (29 September 2016) USA

Playboy Playmate could face jail time for body-shaming Snapchat photo (8 September 2016) See 2017 follow-up article here

London’s LGBT Police Are Harassing Non-PC Twitter Users, Naming Family Members In Tweets (22 August 2016)

Scotland Yard ploughs £2million into new ‘thought police’ unit to snoop on web users and hunt down trolls (14 August 2016)

$150,000 Facebook post that destroyed a former deputy principal’s life (8 August 2016) Australia

What bit about the wrongs of sexual threats against women do courts and men not get? by Emma Jane (4 August 2016) Australian feminist academic rejects court ruling and bays for the blood of young male troll. If we reversed genders there would be silence or support for fair judgement. You know I’m right.

Forgiving family reveal they WON’T press charges against teenage girl who posted embarrassing photo of their son, 15, online the night before he killed himself (25 July 2016)

The solution to online ‘harassment’ is simple: Women should log off (5 July 2016)

American woman guilty of threatening to kill Stephen Hawking (3 July 2016)

The top 20 Australian politicians, with respect to receiving online abuse, are all right wing males (1 July 2016) Australia. Typical feminist take on this issue, for e.g. mis-labels harassment as “online violence” and “sexual violence”, does not provide corresponding statistics for men/boys harassed online, nor divulge that much abuse is perpetrated by women/girls. The implication is, as always, men=bad & women=men’s hapless victims.

Female politicians (sometimes) receive more abuse than male counterparts, apart from when they don’t… (29 June 2016)

‘That Tinder girl’: Olivia Melville speaks out about online harassment (19 June 2016)

An investigation into the online stalking and harassment of female MHRA Jasmin Newman (June 2016) More about Jasmin’s situation in this article

Accused, 62, calls law heavy handed (14 June 2016) NZ

#ReclaimtheInternet: MP Jess Phillips validates worst fears regarding Reclaim The Internet, the UK’s budding government feminist Internet censorship campaign (6 June 2016)

Why does this forum have a feminist icon in the top left? (27 May 2016) The ‘Reclaim the Internet’ campaign was established by British MP’s. One forum visitor questions the appropriateness of using a feminist symbol.

Teal Deer’s analysis of the “online misogyny” data (May 2016) Video presentation

Twitter abuse – ‘50% of misogynistic tweets from women’ (27 May 2016)

When women can be misogynist trolls, we need a feminist internet (26 May 2016)

“It might be the best six months of your life.” Woman banned by judge from social media (11 May 2016) Australia

Virar man ends life as wife shows intimate pictures with lover (28 April 2016) India

Why outing senders of unsolicited dick pics is not the same as ‘revenge porn’ (27 April 2016) Plenty of feminist misrepresentation with nil sources cited to back up the usual women=innocent/men=guilty claims.

Eight things not to say to someone facing online abuse (20 April 2016) See point 4 in this article by misandrist Laura Bates: “Silencing is the end goal of the majority of abuse”. Erm, so all those feminists systematically lodging bogus reports to have people’s social media accounts closed, they would be online abusers then?
Yvette Cooper calls for greater monitoring of online harassment (20 April 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Teen pleads not guilty to charges over livestreaming friend’s rape (20 April 2016) USA

Teenage girls traumatised by revenge-porn network aimed at ‘teaching us a lesson’ (19 April 2016) Australia. Both males/females are targetted by online abuse, including revenge porn, but you won’t read that in this gender-biased MSM offering.

The top secret internet groups where men are forbidden (18 April 2016)

Jilted boutique owner bombarded ex with dozens of naked snaps of herself and an explicit video after he dumped her (16 April 2016)

Candace Owens sought to create a hit-list of people whom she and others identified as trolls (15 April 2016) USA … but then read about how this ill-conceived project was subsequently sabotaged by feminists motivated by jealousy, at ‘How A Torpedoed Kickstarter Campaign Unintentionally Revealed An Unlikely Unit of Cyber-Terrorists‘. The story is continued and summed up nicely in this further article by David King.

The dark side of Guardian comments (12 April 2016) UK

Jilted saleswoman put her ex through revenge porn nightmare by posting explicit images of him online in first ever case of male partner being targeted (9 April 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Girl gets Instagram revenge on cheating ex (25 March 2016) Reverse the genders in this story and “one poor lass” becomes ‘online harassment by abusive former boyfriend’

Spurned ex-girlfriend, 51, sent explicit revenge porn images of her former lover dressed as a woman to his friends and called him a ‘tranny c***’ on the Facebook page of his car washing business (19 March 2016) UK. See related Reddit discussion thread here

Feminist bullies don’t understand the Internet (13 March 2016) Video which focusses on the Gregory Elliot court case.

Is accepting abuse just part of joining Twitter? by Australian feminist writer Tara Moss (13 March 2016)

“A new survey by the Internet security company Norton (for which I’m an ambassador) shows that nearly half of all Australian women (47 per cent) experience online harassment. That rises to a staggering 76 per cent for women under 30. Unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of women believe online harassment is a significant problem and 60 per cent believe it has got worse in the past year.” And nowhere in this article will you find corresponding statistics in relation to men – the survey didn’t include questions about male victimisation. I wonder why not?

Online harassment of women at risk of becoming ‘established norm’, study finds (8 March 2016) Australia. Guardian article drawing on the Norton survey which air-brushed out male victimisation/female perpetration, and thus robbed the findings of social context. No doubt a good thing from a feminist perspective if that would have diminished the victim status on which their ideology is based.

Taking Steps Towards Online Safety This International Women’s Day (7 March 2016) Online vulnerability is not a gender issue, well not unless you are a high-profile tech company with a distinctly pro-feminist bias.

Social media trolling of female journalists is insidious, report shows (6 March 2016) Australia

Receiving online abuse has now become a badge of honour (2 March 2016) UK

Vaginal knitting – Ms Jenkins said the most hateful comments were surprisingly from women (29 February 201)

Emily Sears and Laura Lux: Why we shame the trolls who send us inappropriate messages (31 January 2016) I don’t support the guys sending ‘dickpics’, but the fact that these particular women flood social media with salacious selfies adds a certain irony, yes? #FeministLogic #Facepalm

An anonymous response to dangerous FOSS Codes of Conduct (24 January 2016) USA

Playing Politics With Online Abuse, by Cathy Young (23 January 2016) USA

Court Sets New Precedent By Ruling Against Woman Who Used Facebook Tagging To Harass Her Ex’s Family (21 January 2016) USA

Mum placed on sex offender register after sharing revenge porn videos of cheating boyfriend (18 January 2016)

Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos: Progressives Shutting Down Discussion by Calling It Harassment (8 January 2016)

Online sexism is so out of control that we can no longer ignore it (17 December 2015) UK

More than 1,000 women in secret Facebook group name men who troll women online (4 December 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Sydney man fired after calling feminist writer Clementine Ford a ‘sl**’ (1 December 2015) And Clementine, just what consequences are there for women who “behave like this“? Absolutely none, right? (More on this issue in this blog post)

Domestic violence and Facebook: harassment takes new forms in the social media age (30 November 2015)  Australia. And again, this article ignores female perpetration and male victimisation.

100 Women 2015: Social media ‘fuels gender violence’ (26 November 2015) The suggestion here that women are 27 times more likely to be “abused online” is absurd.

One mother-in-law for sale! How angry wives are exposing their marital strife online (24 November 2015)

A Life Ruined By Feminists And The State: Only The Internet Can Save Canada’s Gregory Alan Elliott (19 November 2015) See also this article by Stephen Beard. See this video for how this saga ended (Greg won in court). An overview providing various linked sources is available here.

Education Department investigates report of students posting teacher’s nude photos on social media (18 November 2015) Australia

My doxxer knows how to use Google, has no idea how to “dox” (14 November 2015)

Politicians rally round MP who faced online abuse after criticising men’s rights debate request (31 October 2015)

Were examples of specific rape threats made public? No. How about a formal complaint to police? Apparently not. “Oh look, another politician ginning up fake threats to boost her feminist cred. Never seen that before….” (Source)

Ashy Bines hits back at online trolls after they attacked her post baby body (27 October 2015) It’s laudable that the article makes clear that the trolls were female.

Fact-checking the UN: Is the Internet dangerous for women? (13 October 2015) Video

Women Who Write About Tech Are Still Being Abused Online (13 October 2015) Female author paints a misleading picture whereby only women online are attacked or criticised. Related reddit discussion thread here

Why Justin Bieber’s naked pictures highlight feminist double standards (12 October 2015)

New UN Plot to Make the Internet a Safe Space EXPOSED…and it was Hiding in Plain Sight (8 October 2015)

How can we stem the tide of online harassment and abuse? (5 October 2015) Australia

The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings (25 September 2015)

TIL that, despite popular belief, men get threatened to have their private photos exposed online more than women (12% vs. 8%) and have the threats carried out more often than women (63% vs. 50%) and related reddit discussion thread (21 August 2015)

Mean Girls: Why the Only People Women Should Fear Online Are Other Women (10 August 2015)

British Police Chief Will Prioritize Online Abuse Reports Over Burglaries (2 August 2015)

Christie Blatchford: Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech (14 July 2015)

Randi Harper, Part 2: The Fact and Fiction of the Troll Formerly Known as @freebsdgirl (2 July 2015)

Kiwi parliament passes ‘Harmful digital communications bill’ outlawing online nasties (1 July 2015)

Harping On: The Hypocrisy and Lies of Twitter’s Most Notorious ‘Anti-Abuse’ Activist, Randi Harper, Part 1 (29 June 2015)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Online Harassment (21 June 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread. But when the target of abuse is male … well, that’s different (See related reddit discussion thread here)

Why Do Feminists Cook Up Stories About ‘Misogyny’ When They Lose Debates? (11 June 2015)

Boston University prof in racist tweet flap accused of trolling white rape victim (18 May 2015)

Online harassment is a form of violence (8 April 2015)

US college student gets cyber-bullied after expressing concerns about a ‘Check your Privilege’ bulletin board in her Facebook page (2 April 2015)

#TeamHarpy: Another Ugly Story of ‘Progressive’ Vigilantism (27 March 2015)

Emma Watson: Trolls threatened to publish nude photos of me (8 March 2015) This article quotes Emma as saying most of those posting threats were other women, yet this article (in pro-feminist claims that men were to blame. As mentioned earlier, this represents an all-too typical bending of the facts to suit the narrative.

Fake Tinder account proves men aren’t so bad after all (12 February 2015)

Measures taken to combat girls bullying girls online (3 January 2015)

The Good (and the Bad) of Twitter’s New Bid to Stop Harassment (7 November 2014)

Online harassment affects men too (4 November 2014)

Anglicare WA survey finds more than half of male victims of domestic violence were subjected to online shaming (28 October 2014)

Online harassment – PEW Research (22 October 2014) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread


Men are harassed more than women online (4 September 2014)

Men get more than twice as much abuse as women on Twitter (24 August 2014)

#RevengePorn: Real Numbers Show It’s Not Really A Gender Issue (29 July 2014)

Men and women are equally harassed online

Women troll each other online: How females are just as likely to be abused by their own sex as by men (15 May 2014)

Facebook bullying: 19-year-old men are most frequent victims of trolling (15 March 2013)

#womenagainstfeminism receive hundreds of threats (Scroll down their Facebook timeline to 16 August 2014 for details) Somehow I don’t think it would be men issuing most of the threats … but surely not women?

This June 2014 reddit discussion thread, and linked newspaper article, is about female Twitter trolls

Online Harassment in Context: Trends From Three Youth Internet Safety Surveys (2000, 2005, 2010) Published 2013

Female Stalkers, Part 1: What is Stalking and Can Men Be Stalked by Women? (8 February 2011)


Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist

On the inability to cope with criticism in a mature manner (You disagree with me = You hate women)

Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

What did you call me? On labelling and language in gender discourse

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinion

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

Firstly, what do I mean by the term “fudging” in the context of this blog post?

  • to present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead and/or
  • to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.

So how do feminists and their allies, go about fudging statistics? Well the most common technique used, so prevalent that it’s virtually a hallmark of feminist literature, is to report statistics in relation to female victimhood in the absence of comparative figures for men and boys.

And now, in a worrying trend, more and more research projects undertaken by pro-feminist organisations don’t bother to investigate impacts on males or attitudes towards men (examples herehere, and here). Clearly with corresponding data in relation to males unavailable then rapporteurs can easily deflect requests for contextual information. Information which would, in many cases, otherwise weaken their claims of gendered victimhood.

Thus biased researchers can represent a social problem as being gendered when it is not. And so the next researcher builds on existing incomplete research and concludes and/or implies in their report … this problem rarely affects men, or affects men in different & lesser ways, etc (but we can’t be sure because no data). And the cycle of gender bias in research, and subsequently in policy formulation, rolls on.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believe the reverse to be true, and that there is a ‘gender data gap’ with “male-biased surveys that fail to capture women’s perspectives, their needs and their economic value”. They provide a 3rd world example upon which I am not qualified to comment, but with regards to 1st world countries their proposition is laughable.

A paper by Dr. Murray Straus addressed the issue of feminists distorting domestic violence data. He identified the seven primary methods they used as being:

  1. To suppress Evidence
  2. To avoid obtaining data inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
  3. To cite only studies that show Male Perpetration
  4. To conclude that results support Feminist beliefs when they do not
  5. To create “evidence” by citation
  6. To obstruct publication of articles and obstruct funding research that might contradict the idea that male dominance is the cause of PV (see this post)
  7. To harass, threaten, and penalize researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs (see this post)

I was studying the readers comments in relation to a rather biased article about domestic violence. One comment was from a respected spokesperson on men’s health issues, Adam Blanch. Adam was talking about the latest ‘Personal Safety Survey‘ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is what Adam had to say:

“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.

The partner abuse state of knowledge Project, the largest and most comprehensive meta study of DV ever conducted, makes this information freely available at

The entire Duluth model, which assets that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.

PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.

The 2012 report sampled less than 20% the number of women than men, down from 25% in the 2005 survey. though overall they increased the numbers for both genders for 2012, the male sample size is so small that many of the findings are unreliable again.

They were criticised for only using female interviewers in 2005, so in 2012 they trained a few male interviewers to be available on request. However, they don’t appear to have told the interviewees that they were available. This was based don ‘expert advice’ that both men and women would be more comfortable with female interviewers, these experts are unnamed. Who are they. Are they male? have they worked with male victims of abuse? What qualifies them as experts. I’ve worked with thousands of men, and I can assure you that most men will not reveal the same information to a woman that they will to a man.

This lack of transparency and sample balance is unacceptable for research conducted at this level.”

The Bureau shrugged-off this criticism and in September 2016 successfully obtained AHRC approval to only employ female interviewers in relation to a survey that encompasses the issue of domestic violence.

In ‘Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men‘ it stated:

“Professor Triggs granted the ABS the exemption, accepting their submission, which included studies from not-for-profit groups, stating men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women” And so disregarding the flipside … that male victims would be more likely to tell THEIR story to other men.

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

This is hardly the first time I have encountered concerns raised by authoritative sources regarding the credibility of domestic violence research, and in fact it appears to be an ongoing issue.

Australia’s ABC has a reputation for pushing the feminist agenda, with one example being the article ‘Domestic violence of epidemic proportions a ‘national emergency’: campaign groups‘ by Ursula Malone and Juanita Phillips. Nothing like turning up the rhetoric to keep that government funding flowing through to feminists and their organisations during these difficult economic times. And all based on fudged statistics, in particular that “Domestic violence is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45“.

That statistic was sourced from this 2004 report by VicHealth. Indeed, that report was essentially 44 pages of taxpayer-funded feminist bias wherein violence towards men was dismissed in one sentence in the preamble: “Although men are among the victims of intimate partner violence, evidence suggests that the vast majority of victims are women and that women are more vulnerable to its health impacts”. That statistic was discussed in this 2014 article by Greg Canning and in this scorching rebuttal of the Malone/Phillips article by Men’s Rights Sydney (also available on the AVfM web site).

Now let’s look at three examples of misrepresentation from Australian feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch‘:

1. This well-written letter from Dr Greg Canning to Natasha Stott Despoja concerns serious omissions and misrepresentations in a speech that she gave on DV (28 November 2013) The letter is also reproduced in the VfM web site with readers comments. I am advised that a reply was never received from Ms Despoja.

2. This February 2015 article is laughably disingenuous and quite likely signals a new tactic by players in the Domestic Violence Industry: ‘Natasha Stott Despoja: ‘people are sick and tired of the statistics‘. Or in other words, ‘we are getting called-out for using false or misleading statistics too often now, so let’s publicly discredit all statistics and continue the argument on the basis of subjective and anecdotal evidence alone’.

3. In 2015 ‘Our Watch‘ launched a public education program called ‘The Line‘. The relevant web site features a section entitled ‘Myth-buster – Violence against women’. Myth #7 is that ‘Women often make false claims about domestic violence or sexual assault‘, wherein they state:

“The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Given for example that only 17 percent of women who experienced sexual assault by a male perpetrator (in their most recent incident of violence) reported it to the police (ABS 2012), the actual percentage of false cases is likely to be tiny. By one estimate, the actual percentage of false cases as a proportion of all rapes (reported and unreported) may be closer to 0.005 percent.” (Flood, M, 2014)

An Australian MRA by the name of Paul Rogers brought this error to their attention stating (in part) that:

“Even Wikipedia doesn’t suggest that false rape allegations are as low as you claim,  which is saying something. I have provided an excerpt below from Wikipedia to highlight that your claim is many orders of magnitude lower than even the lowest value claimed by most authorities … I urge you to state the truth rather than continue to cherry-pick outlier claims because they support your misandry.”

I should also point out that it’s not only feminist groups that engage is this sort of misrepresentation. In this media release, the advocacy group SAVE denounces the use of misleading information on domestic violence by none other than (then) President Obama himself.

Demonstrating the remarkably one-sided manner in which feminists view the world, in the following article a feminist journo criticizes a men’s rights group on their use of statistics:

Beware the dubious claims of this men’s rights group, by Sherele Moody (24 June 2017)

In a further blog post I look at the feminist predilection towards ‘tweaking’ the definition of terms such ‘domestic violence’ and ‘sexual assault’ in order to better support their claims of female victimhood and generally bolster public support: See Finessing definitions to preserve the image of female victimhood

The references listed below alternately discuss or exemplify bias against men, as perpetrated by journalists and others (usually) working in the sphere of domestic violence, sexual violence and related fields:

ABC News and Washington Post intentionally excluded male victims from their already flawed sexual harassment survey (12 November 2017)

Gender bias in Australian Institute of Family Studies Experiences of Separated Parents Study (2 November 2017)

This is how NFHS made wives’ mood changes as marital rape (18 September 2017)

UW Researcher Claims The ‘Experiences Of Women’ Invalidate Peer-Reviewed Research (14 August 2017) USA

Flawed sexual harassment report undermines the change it seeks (12 August 2017) Australia

Biased Incompetence in CAFCASS and Women’s Aid Report (4 August 2017) UK

Why these professors are warning against promoting the work of straight, white men (16 July 2017)

Study finds ‘sexism’ in sexual assault research, but this time men are the target (10 July 2017)

Gender Bias in Science or Biased Claims of Gender Bias? (8 July 2017)

Peer Review: A (not so much) gender perspective (18 May 2017)

How to make anything a gendered issue, by Blaise Wilson (30 April 2017) Video

Irony Alert: Gender Bias Study by Women Researchers Suffers From Gender Bias, Peer Reviewers Say (18 April 2017)

Teacher advises student to “look for feminist sources” regarding wage gap (7 March 2017)

When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) As I state in this post, most papers on financial abuse ignore the reality of male victimisation, and this is yet another example. In the absence of conclusive proof that only women were victimised one would expect a researcher to survey men and women. Failure to do so, as in this and many other cases, is evidence of gender bias to support a particular ideological narrative.

It’s time to stop “counting dead women” and face the facts, by Jasmin Newman (28 December 2016)

BBC admits its viral “women write better code” story was fake news (28 December 2016)

New study making the rounds in the media claims patients taken care of by female physicians have reduced mortality

The US Department of Justice refuses to fund research into intimate partner violence against men, or the stalking of men (November 2016)

Girls feelings are far more important than the truth, by Mark Dent (12 October 2016)

Why feminists are so cagey about class (13 September 2016) UK

Why does the CPS report on violence against women include men in the stats? by Ally Fogg  (7 September 2016) UK

Always beating up on men, by Bettina Arndt (20 August 2016)

Cutting to numb the pain of sex abuse: interviews with young women in drug treatment (12 August 2016) Australia. Although this article focuses on the needs of young women, the underlying research surveyed both genders. Whilst I have yet to review the findings in detail, my default position is one of disquiet regarding the merit of applying different fixes to men and women. Without a very thorough understanding of all contributing factors, esp. in relation to cause/effect, there is a real danger that we may misinterpret the true situation. Also, from what has happened in the field of domestic violence for example, there is a real danger of a monopolisation of all available resources for the treatment of women.

Half of women in UK have been sexually harassed at work, study finds (10 August 2016) They didn’t bother surveying men so the readers believe, by implication, that this problem only affects women. I wonder why would the authors they do that? See also ‘Report Claiming Half Of Women Harassed At Work Involved Hardline Feminist Group

Confirmation bias in research survey into men’s mental health which includes questions based on toxic masculinity and Duluth power and control wheel (24 July 2016) Australia. Post in Reddit mensrights forum concerning research undertaken by Melbourne University

There’s no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews (1 July 2016) Oh dear this feminist research didn’t run according to the script

Washington Post: Men lie on surveys, women don’t (30 June 2016) USA

Female politicians (sometimes) receive more abuse than male counterparts, apart from when they don’t… (29 June 2016)

Jess Phillips MP and her alleged 600 rape threats (6 June 2016)

Feds Spend $548,459 Studying Male Students’ ‘Microaggressions’ towards Women (6 April 2016) This example from USA may or may not involve fudging, so sure does looks like a huge waste of public money. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Australia’s most shocking statistic: Sexual abuse and domestic violence against women with disabilities (20 March 2016) Australia. Makes zero mention of the existence of abuse of disabled boys, implies perpetrators are male. More about this article in this other blog post.

When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance? (9 March 2016)

Happy IWD, Now Remember, You’re A Victim (8 March 2016) Video

Radio NZ Careless about Domestic Violence Figures (8 March 2016)

Anti-abuse campaign targets university students (22 February 2016) Australia. Typical of Our Watch research this survey appears designed to deliver a pre-determined finding of gendered female victimhood. The article reports one part of the picture, but where are the responses to (for example) how many boys were pressured “to do sexual things”? Whether girls respect the ability to consent in relation to boys who are drunk, etc.

Action Opportunity: Please Seek The Truth About Male Victims of Domestic Violence, and Defend the Honesty and Integrity of Australian Scientific Research (8 February 2016) Petition to the Australian Research Council

(I believe there to be a question mark over the extent to which the Australian Research Council is itself free of gender bias. I say this not in terms of funds provided to male versus female researchers, but in terms of social research projects with a feminist orientation being strongly favoured. Consider the examples provided of feminist research mentioned in this other blog post, as well as this article which will be discussed in a future post. The author of this article presenting a feminist-concordant perspective on the gender pay gap was also ARC-funded. These spreadsheets look at the nature of projects funded by the ARC)

Q&A: Australian of the Year David Morrison fires up over claim domestic violence data shows decline (2 February 2016) David really must be a feminist, with his ‘who needs statistics anyway’ line (when those statistics don’t support the feminist narrative)

‘Destroy the Joint’ feminist web site inflates the number of Australian women killed in situations of domestic violence (2 February 2016)

How feminists and a Police Commissioner’s Office conspired against male victims of domestic violence on Twitter (5 January 2016) UK. The second part of this investigation is here.

Domestic Violence is not on the rise (16 December 2015)

Clementine Ford is a Fraud (11 December 2015) See also this blog post

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”. This conveniently neglects to mention that as many Aussie kids have seen their mum hit their dad as vice versa (See footnote 7)

‘The Hunting Ground’s’ laughable response to me (30 November 2015) USA

Victim-blaming rampant in Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women – study (25 November 2015) And what of victim-blaming when men are the victims? And of community attitudes regarding violence towards males? Guess we’ll never know because the last thing feminist researchers want to do is provide context for their claims of female victimisation.

Wikipedia is anti-feminist because its editorial policy doesn’t allow you to just make things up …. “conventions exclude and silence feminist ways of knowing and writing” (September 2015) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Mary Koss doesn’t think women can rape men and boys (5 September 2015)

Open letter to the Victorian Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, by the One in Three organisation (17 August 2015) On exaggerating the extent to which female violence is attributable to self-defence

Campus Rape Expert Can’t Answer Basic Questions About His Sources (28 July 2015) USA

In this June 2015 paper the One in Three advocacy group recounts the bias and antagonism they faced whilst contributing to the Australian Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence

The Guardian Australia corrects domestic violence article (17 April 2015)

ABC misleads. No, it’s not more dangerous to be a woman, by Andrew Bolt (14 April 2015) One of the precious few examples of an Australian journalist pointing out the distortion of data by feminists. And here and here are examples of the types of pro-feminist articles that Andrew was railing against.

What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia (undated) Very detailed rebuttal of an ‘expert’ whose work is often trumpeted by Australian feminists in support of their cause

Why do we believe such terrible things about men that can’t be true? (24 March 2015)

How To Lie And Mislead With Rape Statistics: Part 1 (25 January 2015)

Feminists love statistics – the real sexual assault and violence statistics in Australia (13 January 2015)

NSW Police fail victims of domestic violence with flippant social media post (20 January 2015) Australian feminist journalist attacks NSW Police for recognising male victims of domestic violence. Somebody fetch me a sick bucket

Jane Gilmore should stop with the rubbish domestic violence games by Jim Muldoon (25 November 2014). Jane Gilmore is an Australian feminist writer, and in April 2015 she wrote another article, this time attacking the ‘One in Three’ advocacy group and their findings in relation to the extent of male victimisation.

Domestic violence Woozles (factoids) in Australia (25 November 2014) Concerns the feminist claim that DV is the leading cause of death and injury for women aged under 45, and on the same theme:

Criminal suspicion: Domestic violence leading cause of injury to women (undated)

False claims undermine good causes by Claire Lehmann (24 November 2014)

1 in 4 women admit to violence in relationships (7 November 2014) Video by Tom Golden

The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1example 2example 3example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”

New Anglicare WA Report finds over half of DV victims are male for some forms of abuse (28 October 2014) Yet despite this the report’s recommendations ignore male victims and female perpetrators

National Domestic Violence Statistics” page only has one statistic where males are a part of the victims. Can you find it? (27 October 2014) Reddit discussion thread and linked ‘fact’ sheet

The top 5 feminist myths of all time (8 September 2014) USA

Acid attacks: telling only half the story (26 June 2014)

Press regulator: Criado-Perez abuse claim was misleading (11 October 2014)

Domestic Violence Lies from Ottawa (22 January 2014) Video

Youtube video showing talk by Donald Dutton discussed fudging of statistics by feminist workers in the domestic violence industry (2008) Highly recommended viewing.

Commissioner Ken Lay’s professional misconduct (8 December 2013) Australia

It's raining bucks ;) - business woman with glasses The feminist advocacy “research” scam (20 June 2013) USA

Dishonesty in the Domestic Violence Industry, 2006 (Australia)

Do we ignore violence against men? G. Andresen and M. Woods (21 November 2007) This paper makes mention of the use of biased statistics by the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’, which is also mentioned in this 2008 discussion thread

Government deception won’t reduce family violence (June 2011)

How Government’s lie about domestic violence – Australia (17 August 2009)

Feminists deny truth on domestic violence (30 May 2006)

This is a good submission prepared by the Mens Rights Agency addressing the issue of the anti-male bias within domestic violence agencies – absolutely recommended reading

Harvard publishes a study showing women perpetrate more DV, and then the study mysteriously disappeared (A reddit discussion thread from 7 June 2014) and here is a link to an article about that Harvard study that includes a link to a saved copy of the actual study itself (and here is a link to study summary)

Refuting 40 years of lies about domestic violence by Dean Esmay (19 December 2012)

Male domestic violence victims suffer from wrongful gender bias

Are domestic violence figures bogus? (22 February 2014) Includes discussion of the notorious ‘intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45’ statistic myth

Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence by Murray Strauss (14 July 2007)

Domestic violence study suspended by UNSW for breach of ethics (14 April 2014) Further background to this matter can be found here

I spoke to hundreds of men about rape and domestic violence (24 September 2014) Note that this is a different survey to that discussed by Adam Blanch earlier. It is certainly feasible that interviewers might influence survey respondents. It hardly fills one with confidence about the reliability of the results when interviewers are prepared to go on record with such strong views on the matter being investigated.

Article about repeated anti-male bias by a judge hearing domestic violence cases

If manipulating and misrepresenting statistics to suit an agenda was a crime then the feminist authors of this “fact-sheet” should be in jail. Many of these so-called facts are debunked in papers listed in this other post about domestic violence, whilst others demand the smallest measure of common-sense to confirm just how misleading they are.

Womens Aid UK actively tries to discredit statistics of male victims of domestic violence (reddit discussion thread and linked article dated 15 June 2014)

Feminists claim bogus link between televised football and the incidence of domestic violence (aka Superbowl hoax). Is this a subsequent Australian variant of the same scam?

“A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15% of killers, and in murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55% of killers” (Source)

The paragraph above was extracted from a 1994 publication, not because patterns of gender perpetration have changed greatly but because the feminist filter has been imposed so completely now, that we only see articles like this one that present statistics in a manner suggesting that women are the perpetual victims of oppressive male malevolence. (Refer to Reddit discussion thread here)

Misrepresentation of Gender Bias in the 1989 Report of the Gender Bias Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by Mark B Rosenthal (23 November 2005)

These final linked articles address the predominant influence asserted by feminists in conducting research, and in the subsequent formulation of DV policy:

Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research (undated) USA

How feminists shaped Australian government policy on domestic violence (A doctorate thesis from December 2004)

A brilliant funding strategy” – How and why feminists took over the domestic violence movement Interviews with Erin Pizzey, Senator Anne Cools, Warren Farrell and others (Youtube video)

Domestic violence, predetermination, and the feminised bureaucracy (Peter Zohrab, 2008) The same author has written many other papers about domestic violence in New Zealand.

Regarding the table below … hardly an ‘epidemic’. The only increase is in male victimisation. It’s no wonder that, in pushing its ‘epidemic’ barrow, the Domestic Violence Industry increasingly relies on statistics generated by help-line call centres instead. And of course we can trust the integrity of those sources.








“Advocacy research consists of collating available evidence or producing new information to support a pre-determined policy position. Advocacy research is commonly carried out by pressure groups, lobby groups and interest groups (such as trade unions) and, occasionally, by political parties, journalists and academics – especially those working in the social policy field.”

Catherine Hakim (2000). Research Design: Successful Designs for Social and Economic Research. pp. 8–9.

“It is difficult to criticize advocacy research without giving an impression of caring less about the problem under consideration than do those who are engaged in magnifying its size. But one may be deeply concerned about problems such as rape, child abuse, and homelessness yet still wish to see a rigorous and objective analysis of their dimensions. Advocacy research that uncovers a problem, measures it with reasonable accuracy, and brings it to public attention performs a valuable service by raising public consciousness. The current trend in advocacy research is to inflate problems and redefine them in line with the advocates’ ideological preferences. The few impose their definition of social ills on the many – seeking to incite moral panics. This type of advocacy research invites social policies that are likely to be neither effective nor fair.”

Gilbert, N. (1997). Advocacy Research and Social Policy. Crime and Justice, 22, 101-148

My initial post about domestic violence within this blog can be found here, whilst other DV-related posts can be located by clicking on the ‘domestic violence’ tag at the bottom of this page. It is suggested that this post also be read in conjunction with:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

Finessing definitions to preserve the image of female victimhood

Gendered, gendered, gendered: The word that fuels the feminist machine

Achieving personal financial security is important for everyone, but dodgy research helps no-one