The justice system and legal reform are pivotal factors to be addressed in moving towards true gender equality, and I mention this in a number of my blog posts, including:
What has happened to the presumption of innocence in Australia?
How can accused men receive justice in a system where police and prosecutors refer to complainants as “victims” or “survivors”?
Over the last six months, five NSW District Court judges have spoken out about insufficient evidence supporting cases of men accused of sexual assault.
Now the NSW public prosecutors are conducting an audit of all current sexual assault cases.
Legal rights of men accused of domestic violence are under siege after activists falsely claimed an epidemic of domestic homicide – despite the Australian Institute of Criminology just announcing a 30-year decline in domestic homicide rates.
Care to learn the true facts – from legal experts, law professors, statisticians, whistleblowers, victims of injustice, media analysts – exposing how ideology has captured our justice system and tossed aside the basic principle of equality before the law?
“The time is right. Equality before the law no longer exists in Australia. The presumption of innocence has been tossed aside – totally discarded by our biased media and undermined by legislative tampering with basic principles of justice.
For decades our justice system has been tilted to favour “victims”, with the result that men and women are treated very differently – by police, the Family Court, judges and juries in the criminal law system.
But gradually the rot in the system is being exposed. Right now, 400 current sexual assault cases are being audited by NSW public prosecutors to determine whether, as six judges have claimed, such cases are being pushed through to trial with insufficient evidence.
We are seizing the moment, and bringing together real experts to expose what is going on here. And to talk about what’s needed to achieve a fair system.
Our conference supports all victims of violence and sexual assault and that requires telling the truth about these complex issues. All victims, whether male or female, deserve policies based on up-to-date accurate data and truthful analysis. Flawed analysis can only lead to flawed policy which contributes to the ongoing crisis in our justice system and the current misleading public narrative on these issues.
Most importantly, the current high rates of false allegations are making it difficult for genuine victims to be heard. These victims deserve a better system.”
The conference was hosted by Australians for Science and Freedom, an organisation promoting better institutions that embed respect for freedom and scientific approaches for society’s problems. To find out more about Australians for Science and Freedom, click here.
The event was sponsored by Mothers of Sons, an organisation of mothers fighting to expose the injustices their sons have faced in our biased criminal and family law systems. To find out more about Mothers of Sons, click here.
Thus Crikey didn’t simply grovel, it took the somewhat unusual step of also deleting the article in question from their website. So if you’d like to read the article and form your own view of the matter, well tough, as you’ll need to search high and low to find yourself a copy. You might also wish to read various papers on the topic that have been prepared by Bettina Arndt (example).
I’ve read the Crikey article and I can’t fathom the amount of venom it’s attracted. The author doesn’t accuse anyone of anything, he simply nominates and briefly discusses a number of possible scenarios. I could point to many pro-feminist/woke-authored papers that should have sparked greater outrage, and were far more worthy of removal. Anyway, I’ll study Guy’s article again in coming days and perhaps my view will alter. But I doubt it.
Considering the following points:
the rather large question marks still posed by the Higgins matter
the corresponding manner in which our feminist-saturated media deals with (or fails to deal with) stories about men and boys, and
that we seemed to be making progress in terms of the media tackling issues with their eyes a little more widely opened.
I’m more inclined to #FacePalm #sigh. Oh, I dunno. Surely I’m not alone in finding this episode to be both very disappointing and worrisome regarding where-ever it is that the media, government and sundry woke cohorts are heading?
And the silence that now surrounds the issue suggests that those who might otherwise demand answers, have gone to ground in the expectation that woke screamers will bay for the blood of anyone who dares lift their heads from the trench.
One point that has been raised, and understandably so, is the figure of AUD$3mill that was earlier suggested as the sum that Brittany received from the government. Brittany has stated that she didn’t receive anything close to this amount. So how much and why?
Surely you would think that someone would lodge an FOI request to clarify at least this point. But nope – silence.
Anyway we’ll see what, if anything, emerges in coming days.
Last month it was announced all Australian high school students are to be taught about sexual consent and coercion. Mandatory education programs are being rolled out across the country teaching boys not to rape.
It’s mainly due to Sydney schoolgirl Chanel Contos (pictured above), who burst into the limelight last year when she announced that a school sex education course had led her to discover she’d been raped two years earlier. As a 13-year-old she’d been “forced” to go down on a boy at a party but it took a Year-10 school sex education course for her to realize what had happened to her. She started a website encouraging other girls to tell stories of similar sexual assaults and nearly 2000 obliged. Ever since she’s been out there calling out male misbehaviour and lobbying for school sexual consent courses.
This is just the latest front in the mighty feminist battle to rein in male sexuality and punish more rapists. I wrote recently about how the NSW parliament was misled by false statistics which were used to assist the smooth passage of enthusiastic consent regulations into law. At much the same time over 1500 school kids were signing a Contos petition calling for enthusiastic consent to be taught in schools.
Our compliant media dutifully pushed the fearmongering as Contos met with members of parliament and other power brokers to make it all happen. We heard shocking stories of drunk girls waking up to discover males taking advantage of them, boys behaving badly, circulating photos of their mates having sex, etc – some truly unacceptable male behaviour.
But gradually questions started appearing in online comments about why so many girls were finding themselves in these risky situations, why were so many vulnerable youngsters attending these alcohol and drug fueled parties? Naturally any suggestion that girls needed to take care of themselves were howled down. A principal of a Sydney girls school dared to suggest that along with more sex education in schools, parents need to be “having conversations regarding consent, the impact of alcohol, risk-taking behaviours and self-respect.” Her sensible suggestion was treated with disdain by journalists who lined up enlightened souls to put her straight. The problem is “not about girls” pronounced an executive from the Alliance of Girls’ Schools, but rather about the “underbelly of disrespect, privilege and callousness displayed by young men towards young women.”
“This is a systemic, centuries-old societal problem,” she explained. “Behaviour that endorses male sexual entitlement, lack of accountability and a power imbalance.”
That’s it, you see. Feminism 101, all designed to tie in nicely with the “respect for women” ideological claptrap already rolled out in the “Respectful Relationships” programs allegedly tackling domestic violence, which are currently indoctrinating children in schools – teaching them about toxic males and helpless females.
Now sexual consent education will reinforce that message. I’ve just been sent snapshots taken from the brand-new curriculum being introduced in one South Australian school. Apparently, there’s flexibility in how the educators choose to address the topic but it seems most schools will take a similar approach.
It’s fascinating seeing how the educators twist themselves into knots to avoid any hint of victim blaming. They’ve come up with a new slogan: “Vulnerability is not the same as responsibility.” Look at this little scenario featuring Kim. Be warned, it’s pretty confusing because we aren’t given the gender of Kim, who uses the pronoun “they.”
Kim is out drinking, and a man “they” knows offers “them” a ride home but instead drives to a secluded spot, parks and wants to have sex. Our educators spell out the message very clearly: it’s the villain, the driver, who is 100% responsible for his actions and whether or not Kim is safe. Kim is simply “vulnerable” as a result of decisions “they” have made to get into this situation.
Neat, eh? In this particular scenario we don’t know the gender of the potential victim, but the bulk of the responsibility/vulnerability examples given in the curriculum involve males taking advantage of girls who arguably signal sexual interest in various ways by wearing low-cut dresses or inviting a boy to “snuggle” with them in a private room at a party. Here’s a classic example, featuring Jen and Luke. Note that it is taken from an American publication called “Men Stopping Rape” – which says it all….
The predominantly female teachers who will be guiding the students’ discussion of these scenes will no doubt work hard to convince the kids that the boy is inevitably 100% responsible while the innocent girl is simply vulnerable.
Very occasionally they do present a girl as the baddie. Like the sexually aggressive Mila who is all over her boyfriend Luke and gets very indignant when he says he wants to take his time. “I said it was time to be a real man and do the deed,” responds Mila. A rare toxic woman but overwhelmed by large numbers of pushy blokes who don’t take no for an answer, have sex with sleeping girls and boast about having sex to their mates.
The curriculum does include one scenario, Ali and Josh, describing the situation of a girl who has sex because she fears her boyfriend might dump her if she doesn’t. That’s true to life… a very good example of a girl giving consent she may later regret. The great pity is there is so little in this curriculum about the many reasons girls might be ambivalent about consent. The central myth of the “enthusiastic consent” dogma is the notion that girls/women know their own minds and clearly indicate their desires. The truth is males are forced to interpret the muddy waters of female sexual ambivalence, obfuscation, and confusion. The apparent “Yeses’’ that are really “Maybes’’ or secret “Nos’’.
This week I had a live chat on thinkspot with a famous YouTuber, Steve Bonnell – also known as “Destiny.” I hope you enjoy our interesting conversation and will “like” the video and share it.
Bonnell has made big bucks as a video game “twitch streamer” but this clever, articulate young man is also a political commentator, debating all manner of issues usually from a leftist perspective. Funnily enough, just after our conversation Bonnell was banned from Twitch for “hateful conduct” which might just have included our chat about sexual consent, which certainly would have got up the nose of the woke folk running social media.
Bonnell regularly challenges the new dogma on this issue, throwing down the gauntlet by declaring that women no longer have bad sexual experiences – if was bad, it was rape and the man’s fault. His argument is that men are being forced into a parental role – treating women like infants with no agency of their own. Bonnell also declares that if you invite someone to your house, you must expect them to see that as a sexual invitation. And that when it comes to stealthing, women shouldn’t have sex with anyone whom they wouldn’t be comfortable telling not to remove a condom.
Naturally I agreed with him on these points, but amusingly Bonnell was very careful not to align too strongly with what he sees as my overly protective pro-male stance. I was intrigued to hear him talk about young women today, whom he claims enter every sexual encounter with some element of fear. As I pointed out, I’ve never felt like that and see this as a total failure of modern feminism. Whatever happened to feminism’s celebration of women’s female strength and independence? Remember Helen Reddy’s triumphant song – I am woman, hear me roar?
Many of you will know Camille Paglia’s famous story about being in college in the 1960s when girls were still chaperoned and locked safely away from boys at night. She describes their fight to rid themselves of this protectionism, the fight for the freedom to risk rape. “I think it is discouraging to see the surrender of young women of their personal autonomy,” she says, amazed that women are welcoming “the intrusion and surveillance of authority figures over their private lives.”
That’s the bottom line here. The sexual consent courses being introduced in our schools are simply the latest effort to convince young women that they are all potential victims, needing protection from dangerous males. Another step to creating a divided society.
Meanwhile another campus fizzer
Five years ago, I wrote about the huge let down for feminists when they persuaded the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct a million-dollar survey to prove there was a rape crisis on campus. All they found was a lot of unwanted staring and tiny rates of sexual assault. Not that we heard the good news from mainstream media which beat up a new narrative about widespread campus “sexual violence” which activists used to bully universities into setting up the kangaroo courts, implementing sexual consent courses and the like.
Now they’ve tried again, and the results are even worse for them. The latest survey published this week was even more of a dud, with sexual harassment rates less than a third of those reported in 2015-16 (8% compared to 26%), and minimal rates of assault (1.1% for the year surveyed compared to the earlier figure of 0.8 %).
What a joke, given that they’d done everything they could to expand the definitions of sexual misconduct, as I explained in this blog last year. The latest survey included as harassment such items as staring, making comments about your private life or physical appearance, and repeated requests to go on a date.
Enthusiastic consent featured in defining sexual assault, with all sexual acts including kissing deemed assault if your partner “made no effort to check whether you agreed or not” and including all sexual acts as assault if you were “affected by drugs or alcohol.”
The response rate for the survey was just 11.6% – 43,819 self-selected responses from those invited to participate, who were in turn just part of the 1.6 million university students in this country. So the new report is based on a piddling 2.7% of the student population.
Not that the statistics matter two hoots when our blinkered media remains determined to sing from the feminist songbook. They carefully shifted the goal posts, highlighting such critical matters as the newly discovered peak sexual assault rates for pansexual students and claiming one in three students experienced sexual assault over their lifetimes, a figure which no doubt includes all the drunken schoolkid gropes that feature in Contos’s testimonials – nothing to do with the supposed campus rape crisis.
Not a single one of the so-called reporters bothered to look at official sexual assault rates for this age group. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey shows sexual harassment rates for 18-24-year-olds of 27.3% and sexual assault at 3.4% – making it very clear that our universities are extremely safe compared to the general community.
For the last two days my loyal followers have been sending in groveling emails graduates are now receiving from Vice Chancellors apologising for the ongoing crisis and promising to do better.
It’s inspired me to put a call out to all you Australian graduates – asking you to spend a few minutes telling these sniveling leaders of your former institute of higher learning that we’ve had enough. Call out their lack of integrity in participating in this farcical misrepresentation of the important issue of the safety of our universities. And urge them to put a stop to this ongoing, contrived campaign to demonise the next generation of vulnerable young men.
One surprising inclusion in the 2020 Australia Day honours list was a Member of the Order of Australia award for Bettina Arndt. It was surprising not because the recipient wasn’t deserving of it (she was), but because such public awards tend to favour those pushing politically palatable (and increasingly left of centre) causes.
You would probably be aware that Bettina is an active supporter of various issues affecting men and boys, and that this has put her in the cross-hairs of the feminist lobby on more than a few occasions.
And also true to form, although Bettina’s views have been described as “dangerous”, most of the media comment focused on her professional integrity rather than the specific issues she raises. Look for example at the Twitter stream for ‘New Matilda’ (@newmatilda) and you’ll see tweet after tweet after tweet concerning Bettina’s academic qualifications, but none addressing her views regarding (for example) an alleged campus rape culture.
Kindly read on for relevant details, including Bettina’s response to those launching the attacks on her.
Women on top. A paper by Bettina that highlights the favour in which Australian women are now held generally (26 June 2024)
New Matilda Statement On Bettina Arndt’s Defamation Of Nina Funnell (26 February 2020) Bettina Arndt has previously suggested that Nina was conducting a long-running & concerted campaign against her. Readers might wish to scan social media and form their own view. The Twitter stream @CEOWomensSafety could be one place to start.
Episode of The Drum (ABC) shown on 24 February 2020 (video). One of the topics addressed was, what the panel perceived as, the desirability of stripping Bettina Arndt of her OAM. See The Drum’s Twitter feed for further discussion (@ABCthedrum)
One specific criticism that has been levelled at Bettina is in relation to her allegedly ‘going soft’ on paedophiles, particularly in relation to one specific interview she conducted. One of the odd things here though, is that I have yet to hear any feminist speak out about the burgeoning problem of female paedophiles. And thus more feminist hypocrisy.
Exciting times are coming. Fabulous women are coming to town.
For a start there’s the young filmmaker, Cassie Jaye whose movie, The Red Pill has been causing such a stir. Cassie is speaking at the International Conference on Men’s Issues (ICMI) being held at the Gold Coast, June 9-11 and then she will be in Sydney for a few days. Cassie will be all over our media during her visit. She’s appearing on Channel 10’s The Project on Thursday June 8 and on Weekend Sunrise on June 11, and will be with Andrew Bolt on Sky News, probably on June 12.
But we’ll also be seeing the amazing Karen Straughan. Karen, also known as GirlWritesWhat, is one of the most popular women working for the men’s movement. I first came across her blog back in 2011 when she was a newly divorced waitress and mother of three writing about her astonishment at how easy it would have been for her to destroy her ex-husband. How our biased legal system conspires with vengeful women to punish men they wish to discard. It was powerful stuff.
Karen went on to become a hugely popular advocate for men’s rights. She now has more than 160,000 subscribers on her YouTube channel and her 2011 Vlog on “Feminism and the Disposable Male” video has almost 1.5 million views.
Karen is extraordinary – totally brilliant, well-informed and an incisive, ferocious debater. None of the well-known feminists will debate Karen after seeing what she did to other members of the sisterhood. See Karen demolishing Naomi Wolf on a televised panel discussion.
Or have a look at this wonderful blog where Karen dissects a pathetic attack by a women’s studies professor on The Red Pill.
Now for the exciting events involving Karen – please tell all your friends so they can see her Australian performances.
Karen will be in Sydney for the week prior to the conference. She’ll be doing an hour long interview with my friends Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron, on Sky News’ The Outsiders at 10 am on Sunday June 4. I’m sure that will be well worth watching.
Then on Tuesday June 6 Tuesday night Karen is doing a Q&A with viewers of Mark Latham’s Facebook. Live streaming from 8.00 pm. We want you to all start thinking of questions or comments. You can send in short video questions or written questions/comments (email to bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au) or wait until that evening and post them on the facebook page for Karen to answer. It should be great fun.
Then for our Sydney people – Karen is speaking on Wednesday June 7 at The Sydney Institute on Why Marriage is Too Risky for Men. The event starts at 5.30 pm, level 40, Governor Phillip Tower, 1 Farrer Place, Sydney. Currently this event is reserved for Institute members who can bring one guest but if they don’t get enough people they will allow others in for $10. A few days prior to the event I will alert everyone to the situation through my web site at www.bettinaarndt.com.au, and let you know if non-members are allowed in. You can become a member for $90.00.
Since word got out that Bettina is organising Karen’s visit to Sydney she has been swamped with emails from men offering good money to see Straughan take on Clementine Ford. And now that’s about to happen – Straughan is one of the stars of what promises to be a very lively event on the ABC’s HackLive on June 20, a debate on “Is Male Privilege Bullshit?” Straughan and Cassie Jaye will participate via Skype, joining a panel of locals including Daisy Cousens and… wait for it…Clementine Ford.
Here’s a taste of Karen where she sums up the risks of marriage for men:
“From a woman’s perspective, marriage still provides significant benefits over single life –in fact, marriage as an enterprise has only improved for women since the 1950s. A woman now has the right to say no to sex with her husband. If he’s abusive, she has an entire public-sector industry itching to help her. If a woman decides she doesn’t want to be married to that jerk who doesn’t help with the dishes, has mommy issues and leaves his dirty socks lying all over the place, well, she doesn’t have to be. She won’t be stigmatized, she won’t be financially destroyed and she won’t lose her children. For women, marriage is all benefit and zero risk, and that’s why women are whining about men’s reluctance to tie the knot. But for men, it’s the other way around–no guaranteed benefit, and the kind of risk an adrenaline junkie would eschew.”
And to give you a further taste of Karen Straughan’s brilliant, refreshing take on gender politics, read these extracts:
About women’s privilege
Women are so rarely held accountable for their actions and decisions and burdens to the degree they should be as human beings:
If a woman can’t be successful, it is because the business world is sexist.
If a woman wakes up after getting black-out drunk at a party full of horny young men to discover she was violated, any hint that perhaps getting black-out drunk at a party full of horny young men is maybe not the smartest decision anyone ever made, means you’re blaming the victim and you’re an awful human being.
If a woman takes five years off from the workforce so she can be a stay-at-home mom, and her re-entry into her career is less than spectacular, it’s never because sometimes life comes down to making a choice between something you want and another thing you want more–it’s because government/society doesn’t do enough to help her.
This is MY life. I am the architect of it. If I fuck it up, it isn’t something that merely “happened” to me–I was an active participant in the sequence of decisions that led to the fucking-up. Make no mistake, modern feminism isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about women’s privilege. It may not look like privilege to everyone, but that’s what it is.
On male disposability.
Male disposability has been around since the dawn of time, and it’s based on one very, very straightforward dynamic: when it comes to the well-being of others, women come first, men come last. This is just the way it has always been. Seats in lifeboats, being rescued from burning buildings, who gets to eat. Society places men dead last every time, and, society expects men to place themselves dead last every time.
Domestic violence
Violence against women in any form has been a HUGE cash cow for feminism. The more they inflate their claims regarding its pervasiveness in society, the more money pours in, and the more power they have to tinker with legislation and policy.
Women lying about rape
Pretending women never lie about rape is not only dishonest, it sends a despicable message to victims. “Women never lie about rape,” tells victims they should always be believed, on the spot, and therefore the normal investigative process is a revictimization rather than a necessary evil….Ajustice system that refuses to punish women who lie about rape is demeaning and belittling the experiences of rape victims, and allowing false accusers to damage the credibility of every legitimate victim without any accountability for the harm they do. And it demeans and belittles a justice system that is supposed to protect ALL victims, including victims of false accusations.
Female self-interest
Feminism has done nothing but exploit this dynamic of the expectation on men to put everybody else before themselves. Especially women. Women’s safety and support, women’s well-being, and women’s emotional needs, always come first. This is the most stunning piece of society-wide manipulative psychology I think I have ever come across. Feminism has been down with old-school chivalry right from the start. They might seem like strange bedfellows, butthey’re not. Because both concepts are built on a firm foundation of female self-interest.
Please spread the word about the fresh of fresh air that is about to hit Australian airwaves. I will list their full media schedule on my website just before they arrive. And if you know anyone in the media who might like to interview these wonderful women please contact Bettina Arndt (bettina@bettinaarndt.com)
The following post was was contributed by Bettina Arndt:
Here’s some rare good news about our Family Court system. Fewer dads with very young children are being denied overnight care of their infants and toddlers.
That’s a very big deal because up to three years ago most fathers lost out when they went to court seeking any overnight care. Lawyers used to joke they’d been “McIntoshed” – a reference to Jennifer McIntosh, the woman whose one study led to fathers all over the world missing out on those precious early years of fathering their children.
Jennifer McIntosh is a Victorian psychologist who was the lead author in a hugely influential study which concluded that any regular overnight care by fathers was damaging to infants and toddlers. McIntosh promoted this position across the world – men’s groups in Israel threatened to sue her after she campaigned in their country against shared parenting.
Then came the game-changer. In 2014 Richard Warshak, a psychiatry professor who’s also an international authority on parental alienation, brought together 110 leading international experts who signed a consensus report which concluded the McIntosh position was deeply flawed, with the researchers shown to have cherry-picked and exaggerated their results to draw “unwarranted conclusions from the data.”
The consensus report provided solid research evidence that in normal circumstances children are likely to do better if they have regular overnight contact with both parents and that depriving young children of overnights with their fathers could compromise the quality of developing father-child relationships.
Another important paper was published at much the same time by Wake Forest professor of adolescent and educational psychology Linda Nielsen who used the McIntosh study as an example of what she called “woozling” –the process of misrepresenting and disseminating data in ways that mislead the public and policy makers. Her 17 page critique exposed the many flaws in the McIntosh study and concluded it should never have been used to influence courts nor drive social policy.
I wrote about all this at the time – my article in The Age finally appeared after numerous legal threats from McIntosh. After publication I heard from fathers all over Australia who’d been McIntoshed and often struggled to establish meaningful relationships with their children after years of virtually being excluded from their lives.
I talked to one man, a Sydney academic who’d been the principal carer for their infant for much of the first year after marital separation due to his wife’s work commitments. Then his ex-mother-in-law arrived in Australia and suddenly he found himself in court fighting for any overnight care. He was McIntoshed and denied any overnights for years of his young child’s life.
The stories were just extraordinary and the whole situation quite farcical because everyone knew many of these mothers were allowing all sorts of people to care for their children overnight – from babysitters, to relatives or even highly unsuitable boyfriends. The only person being denied this role was the father.
The Warshak Report was translated into 18 languages and changed the way courts across the world now deal with such custody matters – in countries including the UK, Canada, Israel, Finland, Romania, Croatia, and Sweden. It’s shocking how influential McIntosh’s mischief had been up to that time.
Finally even McIntosh changed her position, after being influenced by persuasive colleagues to agree to a slightly more nuanced approach. Of course she now claims she never promoted a ban on all overnights for pre-schoolers – yet there’s plenty of written documentation contradicting that statement.
In a discussion paper for the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health (AAIMH) in 2011, McIntosh wrote that: “Regardless of socio-economic background, parenting warmth or cooperation between parents, the shared overnight care of children less than four years of age had a significantly negative impact on the emotional and behavioural well-being of the child. Babies under two years who lived one or more overnights a week with both parents were significantly stressed.”
The same year she also wrote a guest editorial for The Family Court Review which included the following summary: “Repeated overnight stays away from the primary caregiver in the first year or two may strain the infant and disrupt formation of secure attachment with both parents. Overnight stays away from the primary caregiver in early infancy are generally best avoided unless of benefit to the primary caregiver.”
Hopefully such dangerous nonsense is no longer party line in our Family Court system.
Judges and lawyers now tell me that reasonable dads usually are being given some overnight care even with infants, and there are signs that the number of nights now tends to increase more rapidly. It would be great to hear from dads, family lawyers and others with recent experience in the family law system as to whether that’s actually the case.
Of course there are still the Mummy judges sticking firmly to the McIntosh line, allowing dads only daytime contact with pre-schoolers – which is particularly shocking given that research continues to be published showing the importance of both parents being actively involved in children’s lives from a very young age.
So please send me your comments and stories (bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au). Richard Warshak is soon to publish a follow-up to his consensus report and it would be nice to have news from the coalface in Australia to add to the reporting when that comes out.
Why slave away crafting a serious academic research paper when you can knock out an under-graduate quality effort that will still be published provided it pushes the appropriate PC buttons? One gets to bang the feminist drum to one’s heart’s content, virtue-signal across the chattering class, and pad out one’s resume all at the same time.
Anyway, accuracy, objectivity and academic rigor are so last century!
only surveys women yet uses the results to argue a case of relative female disadvantage
features lamentably weak research methodology
only identifies contributing factors consistent with a predetermined conclusion based on feminist dogma
infers that men are primarily responsible for both causing and resolving the alleged situation of female disadvantage
My comments are inserted within the body of the article, and shown in blue font.
The main premise of the article is that women are significantly disadvantaged in terms of achieving financial security, and warrant special assistance in this regard. This disadvantage is said to stem mainly from a lack of awareness of investment options and strategies. In supporting this position the paper grasps at various feminist chestnuts such as the gender wage gap, the superannuation gap, and gender bias within schools and specific employment sectors.
“Our investigation into the financial literacy of young women finds they are confident in implementing budgeting and savings strategies, but lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies.”
The first thought that sprang to mind was ‘Why focus solely on young women?’, especially if the intention is to assert gender-based disadvantage. What exactly was the goal of this research project? Better understanding a problem that affects many PEOPLE with a view to identifying strategies to help those in need? Or simply opportunistically seizing on the issue of savings and investment in order to add to the chorus of ‘women have it tougher’?
The justification for excluding men from the study is hardly compelling:
the average level of retirement savings for men is greater than the average for women
men are claimed to be, again on average, more financially literate than women.
What of the fact that many men fall below the male average, and quite likely also the female average? There would certainly be no shortage of men who “lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies“. Consider too that some women would exceed male average savings, and that this segment is sure to increase in coming years.
Bear in mind too that men’s savings are not necessarily their own, and will more often be used to support dependents. For example, many women are financially supported in later life by current or previous male partners, whilst relatively few men are supported in such a manner. And indeed, far more men than women will have some or all of their savings confiscated via court-ordered settlements following separation or divorce.
“This is surprising given that financial literacy usually refers to not only an understanding of how money actually works and how to make and manage money for day-to-day affairs but also how to use this in preparation for the future.
While our results are preliminary, based on social media users and require more detailed research, our results begin to draw links between social, institutional and personal attitudes towards financial knowledge.
A survey we distributed across social media found that 91% of 175 respondents had confidence in their ability to implement savings strategies (varying from simple to complex), and 89% were confident in their ability to budget. Strategies included everything from planning for a holiday to managing credit cards. Participants also considered budgeting and saving to be the most important aspects of their finances.”
It appears that all the survey respondents were female – a major oversight – and were likely self-selected from within the ranks of the researchers’ friends/associates. What likely degree of survey bias did this entail? In other words, to what extent are the results meaningful even in a purely statistical sense?
However, our survey participants expressed a distinct lack of appreciation for longer-term financial goals. While 72% of respondents felt that savings were extremely relevant to them, only 38% said the same about superannuation, and they showed even less interest in other long-term investment (23%).
Knowledge and confidence in implementing long-term investment strategies were even more concerning. Only 17% of respondents said they had a “medium” knowledge of superannuation and only 1% (or two of 175 respondents) felt that they had an in-depth understanding. In contrast, 55% indicated having little or no knowledge whatsoever.
The numbers look even bleaker for responses about investments. A low 12% of survey participants had medium levels of knowledge in this area, while again only 1% felt their knowledge was in-depth.
When asked about why they lacked financial knowledge, the barrier most commonly acknowledged by participants was lack of financial information taught at school (91%). Also 55% of participants reported feeling discouraged from learning about finance because they were women. This is consistent with reports of female students being discouraged from studying subjects such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).”
Oh please! That’s a reach isn’t it? Did male students receive additional education regarding financial information at school? With no corresponding results for young men, the value of the stats provided above – in terms of supporting a gendered agenda – are dubious.
And as for the validity of measuring how people “feel” about things, I would refer you to this paper.
While the pay gap is considerable, the “super gap” is even greater. On average women will accumulate 46.6% less in superannuation than men, and one in three women retire with no super at all. Superannuation is the second largest asset for most Australian households, (second only to housing) and contributes significantly to economic security and savings at retirement.
Insufficient superannuation and savings at retirement have also been linked to high rates of homelessness experience by older women – a point that has been emphasised by Homelessness Australia. While there are many factors that contribute to homelessness, from drug and alcohol abuse, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence, a 2013 study by Adam Steen and David MacKenzie suggests that the little research done is this area indicates poor financial literacy is also a contributing factor.
Difference in superannuation savings between women and men are driven by interrelated factors including: the gender pay gap, more frequent participation of women in lower paid industries and jobs, disproportionate participation of women in part-time and casual positions. Also influencing this trend are the fragmented work patterns as a result of time taken off for unpaid care and pregnancy related workplace discrimination. Women also typically retire earlier and live longer than men – up to 4.4 years longer for a female born today.
These are mainly issues of personal choice. Choose different options, for example taking a job in a higher paid sectors, and the situation changes regardless of gender – as stated in the following paper (and countless others).
“A Department of Labor study released in 2009, which reviewed upwards of 50 peer-reviewed papers, concluded the wage gap, “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
“Women, more than men, show a demonstrated preference for lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety and comfort, and they are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the greater safety and reduced probability of work-related injury or death”” (Source)
In addition to these structural and social factors, our data suggests that women are ill-equipped to manage long-term financial investments.
That sounds almost sexist doesn’t it? … whilst readers can only speculate how much better-equipped men in the same cohort are, as the relevant information is omitted from the “data”.
And then there are the other factors that might have a bearing on women’s relative unwillingness or inability to commit to long-term financial plans. One of these is female hypergamy, and one of the authors responded to this suggestion in the following manner:
Do you, dear reader, consider the author’s response to be a) Objective b) Scholarly or c) Butthurt (Circle correct answer/s)
Some other possible factors are mentioned in the readers comments that follow the article, for example the relative confidence of men v women (as distinct from actual knowledge or skill). Willingness to take risk was also mentioned.
But the authors earlier asserted that homelessness was highly correlated with financial literacy, and yet there are far more homeless men than women. Would someone please explain?
I’m perfectly willing to accept that financial literacy is a significant factor, for both men and women, in achieving financial security later in life. And yes, this should be a major focus in terms of designing appropriate remedial action.
What I am not willing to accept however is:
Designing and providing educational programs for financial literacy that are not available to both men/boys and women/girls
Extending financial support or other incentives to women, but not men (as in the case, for example, of the ANZ staff Super payment mentioned in this blog post).
“The Men’s Referral Service provides telephone counselling and referrals for Australian men impacted by family violence.” (Source)
The Men’s Referral Service (‘MRS’) web site does not provide any information about the management of MRS nor its legal or financial details. Readers are informed that:
“The Men’s Referral Service is a service of No To Violence, Male Family Violence Prevention Association (NTV). Find out more about NTV.”
Further details regarding MRS can however be accessed in their ACNC register entry, including their constitution, list of directors, and financial returns. The most recent financial report (year ending 30 June 2015) showed annual income of just over $2 million, of which just under $1.7 million was received in the form of government grant/s. The biggest single expense, just over $1.7 million, was listed as “staffing costs”.
Whilst the material provided in the MRS web site provides some pretence about their interest and involvement in supporting male victims of domestic violence, they are very much a pro-feminist organisation whose primary interest is the isolation and treatment of abusive men.
The MRS was recently thrust into the limelight as a result of a decision by feminist NSW Minister, Pru Goward, to award them an extremely lucrative grant ($13 million over 4 years) to ostensibly provide support services for male victims of domestic violence.
That ill-judged decision was discussed in some detail in this Nov 2016 article by Bettina Arndt, and also in this media release from the One in Three advocacy group – which I would recommend that you now take a moment to read.
This news came some time after the original media release announcing the availability of funding for male victims of domestic violence. This was much- applauded at the time by individuals opposed to the gender-biased nature in which government grants had been dispensed up to that point in time:
“For the first time in NSW, male victims of domestic and family violence will receive dedicated support, NSW Attorney General Gabrielle Upton and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Pru Goward announced today.
“As part of a record investment in domestic and family violence prevention, the 2016-17 Budget included $13.3 million over four years to make it easier and faster for men and boys to get help when they need it,” Ms Upton said.” (Source)
Thus this has been very much a case of two steps forward and one step back in terms of achieving a reasonable and equitable level of support for male victims of domestic violence.
*To learn the meaning of the term Clayton’s see here
“When feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. Jaye had only heard about the Men’s Rights Movement as being a misogynist hate-group aiming to turn back the clock on women’s rights, but when she spends a year filming the leaders and followers within the movement, she learns the various ways men are disadvantaged and discriminated against. The Red Pill challenges the audience to pull back the veil, question societal norms, and expose themselves to an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.” (Source)
The Australian premiere of The Red Pill was to have been in Melbourne in early November 2016. That didn’t happen. A feminist petition on change.org saw Palace Cinemas crumble and give in to their demands to cancel the event. This discussion thread looks at some of the misrepresentations made in the text accompanying that petition.
There were then several change.org petitions underway seeking to have Palace Cinemas reverse its decision, a link to one of which is provided below:
More than 8,000 people signed this – almost four times the number of people who signed the petition that saw the screening axed! This petition provides a copy of the letter sent by Palace Cinemas advising that they were cancelling the event. The comments added by petitioners are also quite instructive.
In response to the number of people calling on Palace Cinemas to reverse their decision, feminists then rallied in opposition to make sure the film did not go ahead.
Feminists say publicly that they don’t want The Red Pill screened because of it’s alleged hateful and misogynistic message. That’s only partly true. In actual fact they are more frightened by the prospect of:
a) ordinary people being exposed to an alternative perspective on various gender-related issues, and in particular the public becoming aware of, and sympathetic towards, the men’s rights movement
b) the public questioning aspects of both the feminist narrative and the actions of feminists in the community. They are quite simply terrified of the prospect, knowing that exposure to those ideas will inevitably further erode the already dwindling level of support for their tainted ideology.
To my knowledge (at the time this blog post was originally uploaded) no-one in Australia had yet seen The Red Pill. Not the feminists who started and signed the petition, nor Palace Cinemas, no one. All we know about it comes via interviews with the film-maker, a movie trailer and reviews from screenings in the USA. There is no evidence to indicate that the film contains anything offensive or upsetting to the average adult.
This is what feminists do. Not the benign dictionary-definition feminists, I mean the ones in real life. You only need to see how often the ‘censorship’ tag appears in posts in this blog. Censorship and the erasure of dissenting voices, by whatever means, is absolutely a central theme in gender feminism.
What does that tell you about the inherent nature of this ideology? Why do not more people recognise this for the enormous red flag it is, and speak out accordingly?
This video is a good intro to the nature of this ground-breaking film.
Update April 2017: Dendy Cinemas in Canberra and Newtown cancelled scheduled screenings of The Red Pill. And again a petition was started calling on the cinema operators to reverse their decision.
Update June 2017: Cassie Jaye visited Australia to speak at the International Conference on Men’s Issues. During her stay she was a guest on Channel 10’s ‘The Project‘ and on Channel 7’s ‘Sunrise‘ program, both of which generated a lot of media attention.
A remarkably biased and unprofessional interview on ‘Sunrise’ TV show (11 June 2017) The following viewer asserts that many comments were subsequently removed from the Sunrise Facebook page. I can confirm that a video of the segment was not available via their Facebook page when I checked, and there was no relevant entry in their timeline.
Not content with that, in the face of a tsunami of condemnation on social media, Sunrise then demanded that Facebook remove copies of the interview from The Red Pill’s FB page and presumably elsewhere. So rather than do the right thing and apologise, Channel 7 tries to hide the evidence instead. This mishandling of the incident has only served to create further publicity for the film (and again here). Such clowns, and what a great example of why people have lost all faith in the MSM.
Articles in response to Dendy Cinemas shutting down scheduled screenings (April 2017): here, here, here, and here. Some letters to the editor of The Australian can be found here.
Feminists, don’t ban The Red Pill, watch it instead (7 January 2017) Even when feminists try really hard to appear mature and empathetic, they fail to convince … e.g. “a movement based on the notion that men and boys, not women, are the real victims of structural inequalities in modern society“. Said by no MRA, ever, Lauren. MRA assert that men and boys are ALSO “victims ofstructural inequalities in modern society“.
Another feminist petition (31 October 2016) I live in hope that this one will turn out to be a hoax. Failing that these people need the assistance of mental health professionals.
Studio 10 TV show debates the banning of The Red Pill (30 October 2016) It’s concerning to see Jessica Rowe (and others) adopting a view, and imposing it upon others, with so little effort made in terms of research or impartiality.
Mid-way through 2015 the ANZ bank in Australia opted to join the chorus of ‘enlightened’ corporate entities banging the feminist drum at their customers expense.
The bank’s first step was to release the ANZ Women’s Report: ‘Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity’. And no, in case you wondered, there is no corresponding ANZ Men’s Report. There never is. This despite the fact that, in this instance, many men also “fall behind and retire in poverty“.
“For many years people have been trying to tackle issues around gender equality by asking men and women to change. This approach will not work.
What we need to do is to look at the systems that are holding women back from achieving their full potential. And when we’re talking about systems we’re referring to structures and practices in our schools, workplaces, businesses and community that reinforce biases. These systems need to be redesigned so they are fairer for women, recognise the unique strengths and talents of both genders, and equally support the success of both genders.”
So apparently we can’t ask women to change what they’re doing, even if it directly contributes to their predicament. Nope, we have to change the “systems“.
Being unhappy about witnessing this regressive move I contacted the bank, firstly via Twitter and then email, to express my concern and dissatisfaction. Our subsequent email exchange is shown below:
“Thanks for getting in touch with us to provide feedback relating to ANZ Women’s Initiative that was launched on the 29 July 2015. This kind of feedback is valuable to us because it helps us better understand what’s important to our customers.
ANZ is committed to being a socially responsible bank, and we believe that from time to time we have a responsibility to take action on important social issues. We understand that some of our customers and employees hold different views on our decision to make additional superannuation contributions for our female employees, and we respect your right to hold this view.
Research shows that in Australia, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men – and 1 in 5 women yet to retire has no superannuation at all. This is driven by a range of complex factors. However, on average women retire earlier and live longer than men, so the importance of having enough superannuation is even greater for women.
ANZ has weighed up all of these factors and is comfortable that the payment to female staff is a positive step that will help women to overcome the gap.
ANZ takes the issue of discrimination very seriously and in developing these new measures considered the relevant Sex Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws. The payment is permitted under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws because it is a “special measure” designed to address this super gap that our research clearly demonstrates between men and women.
Our action has the full support of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner advised ANZ that, in her view, ANZ’s initiative is consistent with the objects of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. ANZ has also been given a 10 year exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission (because NSW is the only State where the anti-discrimination legislation does not contain a “special measures” exception).
ANZ views this initiative as a positive step to support women and help close this gap in superannuation savings so they have greater security in retirement. While you may disagree, we do appreciate you taking the time to provide us with this feedback.”
I wrote back to the bank:
“Thank you for your prompt response. I disagree with your rationale for promoting feminist policies at the expense of your customers and shareholders. My original position on this matter remains unchanged and unresolved.
1. Whether women retire with less or nil Super is a reflection of their personal choice. Choice about what type of training they undertook, choice about what field of work in which they seek employment, choice about how much overtime they do, choice about whether they take time out during their careers.
2. Those women who choose to get married often then have the choice to be stay at home mum’s (and be supported by their partner) or not. Most women enter marriage with less assets then their partners, or in debt. Most divorces are initiated by women, who then tend to walk away often with in excess of 50% of their partners assets, even when those assets were accumulated prior to the marriage.
3. The wage gap is a much debunked misrepresentation of the true situation in relation to income received by men and women and cannot be validly used to ‘prove’ gender discrimination. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/
4. Women live longer in large part because disproportionately more is spent on research into women’s health and on the treatment of women’s health issues, and because men are more likely employed in relatively more stressful and higher risk occupations (one reason why they are, on average, in receipt of higher incomes)
In summary for every disadvantage suffered by women there are benefits or advantages, as is the case for men. Therefore it is inappropriate and discriminatory to single out women for incentives/rewards for real or imagined discrimination faced by them, but at the same time to ignore issues that negatively impact on men.
The fact that the additional payment to women by ANZ was ratified by the former AHRC sex-discrimination commissioner is more a reflection of her partiality and gender bias rather than vindication that ANZ’s policy was truly a fair and appropriate one. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/“
And the bank duly wrote back:
“Thank you for your email and further feedback which has been noted. As your concern is regarding a policy decision made by ANZ, the Customer Advocate will not become involved. It is not the role of the Customer Advocate to review or change a matter that relates to ANZ’s setting of staff benefits. If you wish to escalate your concern you may contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.”
Whereupon I said:
“Thank you for your prompt response but my concerns with ANZ’s decision to re-orientate itself in lockstep with feminism philosophy runs deeper than simply the $500 payment to female staff. In the absence of other options I will now investigate/consider the appropriateness of lodging a submission with the Financial Ombudsman Service”
It’s not just banks doing this … it’s not just about financial benefits … and the implications extend beyond staff of the relevant company
Since forever many companies have wanted to do good in their local communities, or at least be seen to do good. Until recently they were content to do things like sponsor a local football team or make a donation to a charity. Although the worthy causes were usually unrelated to the business of the company, these were small benign gestures that troubled no-one. How quickly that has changed in the space of just a few years.
Now were are seeing companies expend large amounts of money and time on causes that can be polarising and contentious. The implications of adopting (often judgmental) public positions on these issues or causes can flow through to staff, customers, shareholders and then out into the broader community.
With the superannuation issue there was a tangible benefit for staff, well, for some staff. As this trends builds, and with these other issues, there are both carrots and sticks being employed. The sticks can include shunning/shaming or even dismissal for staff who don’t embrace the company line and engage in wrong-think.
“Solicitors have complained of being intimidated at their workplaces if they publicly criticise the endorsement of same-sex marriage by their professional association and law firms … He said it was wrong for the Law Society and the Bar Association to express any view on same-sex marriage because it was peripheral to the central concerns of both organisations.”
Bankwest Curtin Research Centre – take a look at their publications and media releases. See if you can find any gender-related topic that isn’t covered in a manner consistent with feminist ideology.
Raise women’s super to 15%: Victorian Labor(12 February 2020) The gynocracy warmly welcomes the assistance of fem-compliant governments. Yet another case of #GenderEqualityWhenItSuits
“Westpac has been forced to defend an email from a staff networking group telling fellow employees to vote Yes in the same-sex marriage survey, erroneously claiming that doing so would prevent 3000 suicides a year”
It would seem that National Australia Bank has now jumped on the bandwagon (August/September 2016) See below and here. Perhaps trying to regain their feminist cachet after an earlier #fail
Tweet from Paul Edwards, Group GM Corporate Communications at ANZ. So now it’s forbidden to criticise women in the finance sector (misogyny!). In the words of Miranda Devine: “Where is the sexism? You know what damages women? Cheap virtue signalling PC BS like this”
Australian bank buys into the gender pay gap rubbish (9 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Note the observation about the Bank disabling comments on their Facebook page and cleansing earlier comments – as feminists are wont to do.
This article suggests that women might be better off considering the impact of financial literacy on their retirement savings, rather than complaining about the wage gap.
Postscript (19 September 2018) Today Bill Shorten, Australian federal leader of the Opposition, announced a $400 million scheme to support women in relation to their retirement Super balances
