Further thoughts regarding the White Ribbon Campaign

On 25th November 2014 the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) celebrated its annual ‘White Ribbon Day’, whereupon they beat their chests about the wonderful job they (say they) are doing, and sought to fill their coffers via donations and merchandise sales.

I visited their Facebook page at that time and noticed quite a number of dissenters posting comments there. In true feminist fashion these were slyly removed during the course of the day (as discussed in this blog post). WRC representatives responded to the nay-sayers by castigating them for complaining about WRC’s focus on female victims, and/or by telling them to go and start their own organisation to address violence towards men.

Without doubt there would be many people out there who would say, how could anyone be so mean-spirited as to criticise the White Ribbon Campaign? So what if they focus solely on female victims of domestic violence, at least they are still helping someone? Surely any publicity that raises awareness of the problem of domestic violence is a good thing? Lots of celebrities support WRC so they must  be doing something useful otherwise those people wouldn’t risk their reputations, right? Right?

The WRC believes, or at least tries to make others believe, that those opposing it are misogynists who are angry about its sole focus on female victims. In actual fact, in most cases, that is not the root cause of disquiet about their operation.

So, if this issue isn’t the main issue of concern, then what is?

1. WRC’s lack of honesty and transparency, and their censorship, shaming and attacks on others holding alternative views

Publicly, the WRC’s rationale for focusing solely on female victims is based on their claim that the “overwhelming” majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by males upon females. Privately, the driving force behind WRC is its rigid adherence to feminist ideology.

Misleading statements, concerning the nature and extent of domestic violence, sabotage the efforts of others to institute fairer and more effective programs to combat domestic violence. It is hard to believe that this continual misrepresentation of statistical ‘evidence’ to support the focus adopted by WRC is inadvertent. The strategic invention &/or misrepresentation of ‘facts’ in this manner is a hallmark of contemporary feminism.

These false assertions have the effect of denying male victims of domestic violence appropriate recognition or support, and of unfairly demonising men in general. Another outcome is the lack of attention given to abusive women through, for example, the provision of behaviour modification programs for female offenders.

Thus the problem is not that the WRC focuses on male violence towards women, but that – for strategic reasons – they fail to acknowledge other significant elements of domestic violence. No, in fact they do more than that. They argue that those whose priorities differ from their own are (at best) ignorant and misguided, and at worst that they are abusers themselves.

The message disseminated by WRC seeks to make a complex social issue appear simple. This is useful in attracting and maintaining the interest, and subsequently the financial support, of the public. Part of this involves inventing  a single easily-identifiable bogey-man – the heterosexual male.

WRC’s approach also handily puts the onus for addressing the problem onto men and absolves women of any responsibility in relation to either causing the problem or fixing it.

2. The fact that WRC diverts, both strategically and inadvertently, public and private funds away from programs where they might be used more effectively in the fight against domestic violence and/or in assisting victims of DV

The effects of misrepresentations by WRC, when combined with substantial marketing efforts, political acumen, and a social environment highly supportive of feminism, sees WRC exert a significant influence on government policies and decisions regarding resource allocation to DV.

WRC compromise efforts to reduce domestic violence and assist male victims because they misrepresent both the nature of the problem and the nature of potential solutions. In so doing they side-track us from identifying and implementing more effective solutions. This skews the nature of research undertaken, in turn skewing the nature of support services provided.

WRC are not satisfied for a reasonable share of funds to be directed towards feminist groups like their own, they want all available funds so directed.

Questions have also been raised as to WRC’s ability to competently manage public funds, and the extent to which its operations are financially self-serving. Ironically this is happening at the expense of men, given that men contribute the majority of tax revenue.

Browsing through a recent annual report for White Ribbon Australia was illuminating. To give an example, unless I have misread this page, WRC burnt more than $400,000 in one year just on share trading.

According to White Ribbon Australia’s corporate annual report for 2013, they gambled their donations in the stock market and lost one fourth of their current assets! In other words, they lost almost $500,000 AUS playing the stock market with the public’s donations! Here is what their corporate annual report states:

“Total equity declined from $1,193,398 to $751,611 as a result of the trading loss.”

Society’s current predilection for placing feminism and feminist organisations on a pedestal, goes hand in hand with inadequate government oversight and serious lapses in accountability. History has shown us that this type of situation usually ends badly. It is quite simply a scandal waiting to happen. (I talk about this problem in my post on the Domestic Violence Industry)

WRC’s involvement in running programs in schools

White Ribbon’s involvement in running what are essentially feminist indoctrination programs in schools has been a source of considerable concern for many. This is the subject of the sources listed below, and is discussed further in this blog post.

Senator Says Making Boys Pledge The White Ribbon Oath Is “Public Shaming Based On Gender” (23 November 2016)

Bankstown Public School boys “all say no” to abuse against women in their own hip hop song and video (24 March 2015) Hmm, no sign of a girl’s choir singing nice things about boys … funny that.

We mustn’t make boys feel bad about being male (3 December 2014) with 193 reader’s comments

Why does the White Ribbon Campaign make these errors of judgement, and why will it continue to do so?

WRC will continue down its current path because doing so supports feminist ideology and helps grow the influence of that movement, a goal that is of paramount importance to them. As a consequence, targeting anything or anyone that threatens the feminist narrative in relation to domestic violence is accorded a high priority (see my posts on Tanveer Ahmed and Sallee McLaren for example).

Secondly, it is financially lucrative for WRC to continue their current operating model. Misrepresenting the nature of domestic violence, and exaggerating its scale, stimulates further public support and government funding. This then channels additional funds towards themselves, other feminist enterprises and individual feminists (as per my post on the Domestic Violence Industry).

(Postscript November 2018: Could this be the end? Sponsors abandon White Ribbon and Bye Bye White Ribbon (13 November 2018). And now ‘Anti-domestic violence organisation White Ribbon in $800,000 debt‘ (19 February 2019)

See also:

Mixed feelings on the demise of White Ribbon Australia, by the One in Three organisation (8 October 2019)

White Ribbon Australia entry in ACNC database with links to annual reports

Cory Bernardi Dragged White Ribbon For Supporting Safe And Accessible Abortion (16 November 2017)

Public money wasted on domestic violence organisations, by Bettina Arndt (9 July 2016)

We stop violence at the source. And the source is men (28 June 2016) White Ribbon CEO Libby Davies defends White Ribbon (see article below), and in so doing happily throws men under the bus. Oh, but see the readers comments that follow (240+ at last count), NONE of which support Libby’s misandric stance. Here is a subsequent radio interview with Tom Elliot concerning Libby’s article, with further comments from Tom here.

Why you should never give a cent to White Ribbon, by Nina Funnell (23 June 2016) Australia. Feminists turn on their male allies. Again. And in November Nina’s at their throats again.

Reddit discussion thread concerning RSL employee forced to recite White Ribbon pledge (29 February 2016) See also detailed comment by ‘Imnotmrabut’

Domestic violence and White Ribbon day – help change the debate, by Bettina Arndt (21 November 2015) Australia

The secrets and lies of White Ribbon (November 2015)

Men’s anti-Domestic Violence advocate says scourge “is a male problem” (13 September 2015) Unlike Tanveer Ahmed this WRC Ambassador stuck to the script … good boy Dean … good boy <pat on head>

White Ribbbon misinformation (11 September 2015)

Say goodbye to the burly blue-collar face of unions: they’re now feminist (4 June 2015)

Paul Elam from AVfM on the White Ribbon Campaign (4 December 2014) Video interview

Video critical of White Ribbon Campaign blocked in Australia (1 December 2014)

White Ribbon Australia lies – Interview with Dr Greg Canning (24 November 2014)

False claims undermine good causes (24 November 2014)

White Ribbon Day overestimates reported rapes eight-fold (25 November 2014)

White Ribbon Australia fraud exposed (23 November 2014) with more related details here, including the statement:

Please click on the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ tag at the bottom of this page to see further blog posts related to this organisation.

‘DV Connect’ is “non-judgemental” (but men calling their helpline are sneaky perpetrators)

I read an article yesterday entitled ‘A connection to hope in a world of violence‘, concerning the operation of a charity active in the sphere of domestic violence and sexual assault called ‘DV Connect‘. It featured the usual feminist spin that comes with the territory, but the part that turned my stomach was the following:

“Every now and then a perpetrator calls, desperate to find where his spouse is. Often these men present themselves as victims, hoping to unearth the addresses where their partners might be seeking safety from the storm.

Now, just a quick reminder to readers that at least one third of the victims of domestic violence are men. Staff at DV Connect are apparently so astute that they can confidently differentiate between those men (actual victims) and that very small minority of men who are actually abusers. A remarkable feat by any standards.

In their web site DV Connect describe themselves as follows:

“DVConnect is the only state wide telephone service offering anyone affected by domestic or family violence a free ‘crisis hotline’ 24 hours a day 7 days a week

We offer free, professional and non-judgemental telephone support, wherever you live in Queensland.

DVConnect Womensline takes over 4000 calls every month from Queensland women who are in fear of or in immediate threat of danger from Domestic or Family Violence, and on average we assist over 350 of them and often more than 400 children to be moved to safety every month.

We can arrange practical assistance such as counselling, intervention, transport and emergency accommodation for Queensland women and children who are in danger from a violent partner or family member”.

Yes, you read that correctly, their telephone support is “non-judgemental”. I guess they just mean the service provided for female callers, because they seem perfectly willing to judge the men who call … as mainly comprising perpetrators.

And notice how, within the space of a few lines, they morph from an organisation providing services to “anyone affected by domestic or family violence“, to one that’s here to help “Queensland women“.

They actually do provide a Mensline service, which includes the offer of “specialist assistance for men who are seeking help and looking for ways to address their own use of violence and other destructive patterns in their personal lives and relationships”. Is a similar service promoted in the corresponding Womensline page? Ah, no, because Queensland women are apparently never violent.

Further details about the discriminatory manner in which the Mensline service operates can be found in this reddit discussion thread.

I was unable to locate DV Connect within the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission’s register, but their 2013/14 annual report can be downloaded here. A few extracts illustrating the gynocentric bias within this organisation are shown below:

(p9) “We not only work with almost every specialist and community service throughout Queensland around the safety needs of women and children but we also have the unique position of having a ‘helicopter view’ of the sector as a whole … The physical and psychological safety of women and children living with domestic violence is the overriding focus of our work both on Womensline and Mensline.”

(p14) “An even smaller number of men call Mensline because of violence from a female partner or family member. Often this violence is on a very different level to that experienced where the male is the perpetrator of violence. Most of these situations do not have the element of fear in these relationships …”

(p17/18) “Sadly, hundreds of women, children and their beloved pets across Queensland are constrained in violent and fearful relationships because the fear and practical challenges of leaving are just too overwhelming.”

“Every month in Australia six women die at the hands of their intimate partner, at least one of them is from Queensland” and “Sadly in the year ended June 2014 we held 10 rallies for 18 women who died at the hands of their male partners“.

Minimal mention is made of male victims, apparently less important than pets. And when they are acknowledged (as above) their experience is discounted/diminished. And no mention anywhere, in the entire report, of female perpetrators.

I wish I could say that this type of unfair gender-stereotyping was rare or unusual, but I can’t. The fact is that most organisations working in the field, both government and non-government, are just as biased. Their web pages, their helplines, and their brochures and PR material, all relentlessly drive home a message of men as perpetrators and women as their victims. I provide a few examples of this in other posts within my blog, such as this one.

One of the outcomes of this situation is that only a small number of men call seeking assistance and/or to report what is happening in their homes. I would further suggest that another outcome is the large number of suicides by men involved in situations of actual or alleged domestic violence.

Perversely, DV advocacy groups then use this fact (very small number of male callers versus female callers) to to ‘prove’ their claims that very few men are victims of domestic violence. They also use it as a basis for, for example, reducing the level of services provided for men whilst ramping up the services for women.

Men know full well that they won’t be taken seriously if they call these organisations, and that they may be accused of being perpetrators in denial. Many also know that even if they are given a sympathetic hearing then there are no actual support services available to them (e.g. beds in shelters). In fact, by and large, the only services provided for men are anger management classes (yet, ironically, no such classes are available for the women abusing them).

And invariably (and ridiculously) when anyone dares to question the status quo they are attacked on the basis that they are either ignorant, wilfully denying that women are victims of DV and/or uncaring about the plight of female victims.

But back now to DV Connect’s annual report. The financial statement included within the report informs us that the organisation’s total revenue in 2014 was $3,231,446. The statement does not provide a breakdown of their revenue sources, which is somewhat unusual. I have, however, subsequently been advised by the relevant agency that:

“DVConnect Ltd received $2,853,133 in 2013-2014 and $2,666,064 in 2012-2013 from the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to provide domestic and family violence and sexual assault support services.”

As is typical for the sector, the overwhelming bulk of DV Connect’s expenditure goes towards salaries and employee-related expenses:

“DVConnect now employs 54 staff including a small management and administration team and almost 50 counselling staff all of whom work varying shifts to cover our 7 day 24 hour telephone service.”

In May 2015 it was announced that “DV Connect will receive an extra $750,000 per year for two years, on top of existing funding ($3.17m in 2014/15) for services including counsellors to expand its Womensline telephone support service.”

This reddit.com discussion thread discusses the discriminatory nature of the Mensline service, and calls on people to write letters in an attempt to resolve this situation.

Further information about DV Connect is available from their web site and Facebook page

And elsewhere in Queensland?

nooptionstoreport

Here are two screenshots from the web site of a Queensland Government agency. The wording assumes that any men seeking help in relation to domestic violence are perpetrators, and that any women seeking help are victims.

Unfortunately this bias is replicated in the web sites of other similar Australian government and non-government agencies. One example, involving a Western Australian government agency, is addressed in another post in my blog.bias

Postscript 27 March 2015: In order to provide further insight into the mindset within DV Connect, let me relay what just occurred. I contributed a comment to the Facebook page of DV Connect, in relation to an item about the release of the QLD Task Force report on family violence. I simply noted that I had prepared some comments on the report and included a link to the relevant page (refer screensave below). By the next morning the comment that I posted had been removed from public view. It seems that DV Connect wants to prevent their supporters accessing alternative perspectives. That looks a lot like ‘controlling behaviour’ to me.

dvconnectdvconnect2

To the left is what I see when I visit DV Connect’s page whilst logged-in to my Facebook account. The screen-save below shows what is visible to members of the public, i.e. no comments

 

 

Postscript 14 April 2015: Further censorship with the removal of my comment in response to an inaccurate statement in the DV Connect web site. I simply cited the relevant ABS statistic, but I guess the reality that men face more violence than women was just too triggering.

DVconnect_zap

 

 

On 11 September 2015 Di Mangan was quoted as saying that they couldn’t justify running the Mens Helpline on a 24 hour basis as so few calls were being received. Gee, I wonder why?

Fast forwarding now to January 2016 and along comes another advertorial for DV Connect, naturally with male victims & female perps air-brushed out of the picture.

This January 2016 article includes the following quote from the CEO of DV Connect:

“Mangan said abusive men were “emboldened” by the public murders that shook Queensland in 2015, noting that many of the calls received by DV Connect were from men warning that they wanted to harm their partners. Some of the men wanted help while others were calling to make a threat.”

In November 2017, the Courier-Mail published ‘DV Connect chief executive Diane Mangan axed from role amid dispute‘. I’d like to think this move was about improving efficiency & accountability, rather than just personalities, but have little faith in either of the parties involved.

The sort of gender discrimination practiced by DV Connect has been discontinued in one part of the United Kingdom as described in this November 2017 article by HEquel.

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in these posts:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

My submission to the Premier’s Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland

My response to the report of the Queensland Task Force on Family Violence

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

I spent some time the other day browsing content within the ‘Facebook page of Domestic Violence NSW’. As a first-time visitor I was somewhat taken aback at the extent of anti-male and pro-feminist bias evident in the material posted there.

By way of background, Domestic Violence NSW is a Sydney-based charity that received over $6 million in government funding in the period August 2013 – August 2014.

During my visit I submitted a review of their site, noting that:

“When people google your organisation this is what they read: “Domestic Violence information site for Australian mothers seeking to leave abusive relationships, including contact details for various help services.” Yet when they arrive at your home page the message stated is that ‘domestic violence can happen to anyone, any gender, etc…’

My question is then, if you recognise male victims of domestic violence then why not amend the google summary to be consistent? ie. “information site for Australians seeking to leave abusive relationships…” The only reason to not do so would appear to be a desire to appease the feminists who seem to control the DV ‘debate’ in this country. Please consider and respect both sexes”.

At the same time I submitted that review, I contributed three comments in response to various items posted in the timeline. Whilst the review remained in place for a couple of days (I’m guessing they took a while to notice it), my comments disappeared within hours.

DV NSW then blocked me from making further posts on their Facebook page, and lodged a complaint with Facebook admin. Both of these moves are recognised as common feminist tactics used to try to silence those with whom they disagree.

I saw no evidence of dissenting views posted by others, and from that I assume that the timeline is regularly sanitised as is often the case with online feminist forums.

My crime? My crime was simply to put forward a view at odds with the material posted in the timeline. I can assure readers that my comments were quite cordial and offered free of malice, the most offensive terms included therein probably being “male victims” and “female perpetrators”.

Domestic Violence NSW forwarded this message:

“Hi Chris, All content DVNSW posts comes from credible media sources, using statistical information gathered by that source. We CLEARLY use descriptors when posting content that is an opinion or editorial. DVNSW does not prescribe to these opinions, we simply post the content. Our media monitors capture the daily media involving domestic and family violence and we share articles that meet our policy guidelines.

The issue with your post is that a) it comes from a source outside of Australia, which means it is not drawn from our ABS data collected here and b) it does not contain credible sources of information and references.

If you’d like to read about male victims of domestic violence, we would suggest looking into the work of Dr Michael Flood. He is well researched and knowledgable in this area and highly respected within our Australian context.”

I wrote back seeking clarification:

I’m afraid I’m a little confused as to how I have infringed your posting guidelines. Your message refers to my post, but it would appear that you have removed several of my posts from your timeline. As far as I recall only one of my posts included a hyperlink, and that was linking to an Australian blog. That blog page did in turn include further links to a variety of sources, most if not all of which I would categorize as “credible”. 

As I clearly have an interest in the subject and will no doubt visit your page again, I would like to better understand the nature of your concerns. Would you mind providing copies of the posts that you removed, in each case identifying the offending elements of each? Many thanks for your assistance. Chris

PS: I am aware of Mr Flood’s work and I regret to inform you that, outside of feminist circles, he is anything but “highly regarded”.

I’ll post their reply here should I receive one, but I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Postscript (later the same day): Oh (massive facepalm) this reaction is either juvenile beyond belief … or indicative of a generous measure of paranoia. Upon visiting the Twitter stream of Domestic Violence NSW I was alerted to the following announcement:

Dear followers,
Sadly we have become aware that our Facebook page is currently being targeted by troll groups who remain highly opposed to our exposure of latest boosts in media surrounding the current, credible statistics concerning the death rate of people (the majority women and children) from domestic and family violence this year and last. We are aware that these individuals are creating fake profiles and recruiting others to attack our page with spam from a particular mens rights website. As such, whilst we investigate this and proceed with a course of action, we are regrettably restricting all comments on our posts. We are incredibly disappointed by having to do this as we love your interaction and support of awareness and changing the culture that exists around Domestic and Family violence.
We have made this choice for several reasons, these are;
1. These individuals are posting links to websites and media that we believe could trigger and distress many of our audience who have had experience living with violence. We do not wish to risk the health and safety of any of our supporters.
2. Our media is unable to be monitored 24/7 and it is monitored by staff members, thus making it a work environment. As we would never allow our staff to work in an unsafe work environment, we feel that this content is inappropriate for staff members to have to work around.
3. We feel that whilst we investigate this behaviour, and possible breaches in legislation, we can actively end this continuing further and reach out to those who feel this behaviour is appropriate.
Please note: WE WILL STILL BE POSTING MEDIA AND THIS WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHARED BY YOU.
We can assure you we are still able to be contacted whenever necessary and you can contact us via the information on our website: www.dvnsw.org.au/html/contact.htm and we encourage you to do so.
We will aim to enable comments again ASAP and we thank you all for your continued support.
We all have a right to be heard and to present diverse opinions when this is done respectfully and with maturity.
Thank you and please be kind to one another.
The DVNSW Team

Assuming this is not droll humour, I’m embarrassed for these people.

Feminists reject the term ‘victim’ in favour of ‘survivor’. And yet dismissing those with alternative perspectives as trolls, and concealing or misrepresenting their message, embodies the very essence of perpetual victimhood. It is the behaviour one might expect from infantilized, narcissistic sissie-girls.

Those who are so invested in equality could begin by extending equality to others. You value inclusiveness? Then include others. You want to fashion meaningful reform directed towards achieving real social justice? Come back to the table when you’re ready to act like grown-ups.

Postscript 16 March 2015: A couple of days after DV NSW deleted my posts they inserted a statement in their timeline saying that they supported all victims of domestic violence (pictured). They also inserted a couple of posts about male victims and one about a girl bashed by her mum. In and of itself that’s a good thing, but I suspect it was done more ‘for show’ than to demonstrate real commitment to gender equality.

I also happened across an interesting post online which immediately struck a cord given that it mirrored my own experience with DV NSW:

“The fact is the people pushing this notion that Family Violence is a gendered issue know full well they are lying. I used to believe they were misguided or ill informed but I have had a couple of personal dealings with groups running online support and fundraising for the female victims of domestic violence. When I questioned them and presented some facts in a very polite, respectful manner, the same two things happened on three occasions. 1. My comments were deleted. 2. An article on male victims of DV was posted with a statement reminding everyone that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence. When I scrolled down their page I discovered this was the only mention anywhere on their page of male victims. They only put up that one because they want to cover their arses in case another informed reader questioned their bigotry.” (Source – See comment from Mark Mooroolbark)

I posted a brief response noting my experience with DV NSW, and then things got even more interesting when Mark replied to me in the following manner:

“That is one of the mobs I was referring to! Just this week I wrote a polite comment on their Facebook page and someone responded with that false statistic that DV is the leading cause of death and disability in women between the ages of 15 and 49. I responded by simply stating that this was not correct and listed the five leading causes of death and disability before adding a few more points-all reasonable and polite. I returned to find my comments deleted and a post explaining that due to trolling from a Men’s Right Group they are blocking all comments -they said the women monitoring the site may feel unsafe and that the comments posted were disrespectful, immature etc…

I was so angry that I immediately wrote to Moo Baulch the CEO of the Domestic Violence NSW organisation stating exactly what happened and asking for an explanation. She responded to my email and said she would ring me sometime this week. If the call ever takes place it will be interesting to hear her defence of this censorship”.

Could it be that DV NSW interpreted two individuals independently offering feedback on DV NSW’s priorities as constituting a targeted attack by “troll groups“? Could they really be that stupid or delusional? What do you think?

See also:

The vitriol against the Safe Schools program reflects state-sanctioned homophobia (26 February 2016) Moo Baulch equates parliamentary debate regarding the value and appropriateness of a feminist-supported program in schools to “state-sanctioned hate speech“.

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

A most informative Powerpoint presentation on the nature and treatment of paranoia (Come on ladies, it can’t hurt you just to have a look at this)

The CEO of Domestic Violence NSW, Moo Baulch, is quoted in this article indicating her resistance to free and open discussion of domestic violence, and criticizing the nature of statistics provided by the Police.

As one reader subsequently observed:

“Interesting how bigots like Jenna Price bemoan the ‘lack of context’ and a ‘proper breakdown of the statistics’ when the greatest concern most non feminists have about feminists is their complete and utter disregard for context and the the proper representation of statistics. In fact, it is feminists who are the greatest abusers of ‘statistics’ through misrepresentation.”

Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

When even the Prime Minister’s office imposes pro-feminist censorship …

abbottOn 4 March 2015 staff of the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, uploaded this post to his Facebook page. It was all about Tony pledging his support to the pro-feminist #HeforShe campaign which I discuss here.

I then contributed my own thoughts on the matter. Oh, wait you can’t see anything. That’s because the site administrator filtered it out of the timeline. I assume this was because he/she is either pro-feminist, or anti-MRA, or both. I can’t think of any other reason, for example, there is no profanity in my post. It was not due to my post containing a hyperlink (many other visible posts include hyperlinks), and I note that there are some fairly strident pro-feminist posts left visible.

Anyway, after I logged into my account, there was my post (visible in the second screen save), just below the post by Henry Poulsen.

abbott_uncensored

abbott_censored

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, folks is what you call ideological censorship. Whereas the office of the Prime Minister should be right at the forefront of protecting our democratic right to self-expression, here they are seen to be inhabiting a very different place.

Yet another of the tremendous advances achieved by the feminist movement.

#sarcasm

abbott2

 

 

Malcolm Turnbull (Minister for Communications) uploaded a very similar post onto his Facebook page on 2 March, and I provided the same response. It’s pleasing to note that in his case my post was not removed.

Ah, but then in September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull was appointed Prime Minister, and guess who suddenly fell into lockstep with the feminist lobby?

“The PM told Today’s Lisa Wilkinson that “the issue of family violence, or domestic violence as it’s often called – which is just violence against women, which is the way I prefer to describe it – is an enormous one.” (Source)

No Malcolm, domestic violence is emphatically not “just violence against women”.

On 24 September 2015 the Prime Minister announced a huge swathe of public funding to address the issue of domestic violence. Here is the media release … you will see that public comments are enabled. That’s great, but unfortunately once the tide of comments turned against the Prime Minister’s position, the moderator stopped uploading all contributed comments (no matter how civil they were).

In the screen-save provided below (from my Disqus account) you can see a number of posts marked “pending”. Thus rather than deleting comments, the moderator simply didn’t approve/upload those critical of the Prime Minister’s approach.

disqus

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

Feminists. The things they do <facepalm>

I found out this afternoon that I had been blocked from a Twitter account – one belonging to an Australian journalist. The journalist in question is indeed a feminist, but by no means in the ‘barking mad’ misandrist league of Clementine Ford or Caitlin Roper, for example. Which makes her action all the more disconcerting.

I’m not sure how many others have blocked me from their Twitter accounts (and/or Facebook pages, etc), but there must be a few by now. Two that spring to mind are White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch, both of which are feminist advocacy groups.

Anyway, so there I was, reading a newly-minted article about domestic violence. More accurately, an article about that component of domestic violence involving male perpetrators and female victims. I posted a reader’s comment which failed to appear (other reader’s comments were uploaded). As I had some issues with both the article and certain comments that followed it, I sallied forth looking for another outlet through which to express myself. I turned to Twitter only to be greeted with the following message:

tuohy2

Had I been bombarding the poor woman with dozens of tweets? Nope, just one actually. Well, it must have been particularly vicious! Judge for yourself (by the way, that tweet became the basis for this blog post)

tuohy3

I haven’t ever blocked anyone from Twitter, etc, but I can certainly understand others doing so in situations involving persistent unwanted messages/posts of a threatening or obscene nature. But what I am talking about here and now are situations that are far more benign. Situations where it is simply a matter of ‘I don’t like what you have to say so I am not going to share information or communicate with you in any way, shape or form. So there.’

I have never sent or posted a threatening, abusive or obscene message to anyone, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I choose not to, and I certainly don’t need to, in order to achieve what I am seeking to achieve.

My blog post about feminist censorship included the fitting observation that:

Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”.

That blog post also noted that, despite the very different perception that feminists seek to portray as reality, more men than women are subject to online abuse and bullying, and substantial number of women/girls are responsible for this type of activity. I also noted the increasingly common tactic of feminists lodging false or exaggerated complaints with the intention of having other people’s Facebook or Twitter accounts suspended.

Whether feminists are blocking people from posting to their Facebook pages, from interacting with them via Twitter, or adding a comment to their article or blog post (that is, when they allow any reader’s comments at all). I’ve got to ask … what’s the point?

I guess it all comes back to the question of what are feminists trying to achieve via publishing material online. Sharing and persuading with/to the broader community, or simply seeking a platform to propagandise to the converted and to gullible ingenues.

What do feminists hope to achieve by blocking out alternative perspectives and information at variance with their own stated claims?  Do they not see any value in facilitating dialogue about gender issues? In being inclusive with regards to people who hold perspectives other than their own? Are feminists now so infantilized and imbued with victim-mentality that they see any disagreement as an attack?

I know. Call me biased. But the feminist response seems so juvenile, pointless and counter-productive.

Just … lame

Snap#1: Another feminist – @misskylie77 – just blocked me from her Twitter stream after I replied to one of her tweets (26 February 2015)

Snap#2: The organisation Domestic Violence NSW blocked me from posting to their Facebook page the very first time I posted there – and then employed another common feminist tactic by lodging a complaint against me with Facebook (12 March 2015)

Update 15 April 2015: Care to guess which feminist journalist ‘spat the dummy’ this morning and deleted ALL the readers comments (about a dozen of them) because not one of them supported her convoluted sexist perspective on violence in the community.

Footnote in relation to the following comment from the author of the article

tuohy

 DV-deniers? Really? Readers raised concerns about the fact you had built your case on a series of crimes in which none of the alleged perpetrators had yet been convicted. That’s not denial, simply fact. Readers raised concerns that you based your article on events within a period of just a few weeks, which could greatly misrepresent the reality over (say) twelve months. Again, not denial, just conventional wisdom in the realm of statistical analysis.

Readers also raised concerns that you had not provided any statistics in relation to the number of men killed by their female partners (or alleged to be killed by partners) during this period. And indeed, you admit that you had not researched that topic. Surely both the actual nature of the problem, and the most appropriate remedial action, might be quite different were similar numbers of men being killed?

It looks a lot like you didn’t research the issue and then form an opinion, but cobbled together a somewhat dubious statistic that supported your pre-existing conclusion.

In fact the only denials about DV that I am seeing in this and in so many other articles, involve feminists denying men’s right to raise legitimate concerns about ongoing anti-male sexism and misrepresentation. Denials in particular about both the extent of male DV victimization and the substantial and growing level of female perpetration of violence.

See also:

Reddit mensrights discussion thread related to this blog post

Blocked: Silencing the public opinion (19 February 2015)

Facing the challenge of online harassment (8 January 2015) Jacques Cuze, when discussing this article in the context of his concerns about feminist groups suppressing free speech, suggested that “Twitter (and other sites) should be transparent and specific about who is banned and why. Transparency in who is blocked or banned and why is a critical part of making sure anti-harassment strategies are not abused” (10 January 2015)

Readers might also be interested in reading this related post within my blog:

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

camille

Going Batty: The making of a champion of the domestic violence industry

I have absolutely nothing personal against Rosie Batty, and in fact as a parent myself I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who has lost a child under such horrific circumstances. Her tragic loss has provided her with a unique and potentially valuable insight, but it does not qualify her to direct public policy on dealing with domestic violence in the community. She is but one person affected by a scourge that has affected thousands of Australians.

This is a complex topic and we need to hear about, and be open to, the experiences and opinions of many others. We should also ensure that we consider different theoretical/ideological perspectives and not, as is done now, exclude serious consideration of all but one approach (feminism/Duluth Model).

Rosie has transformed herself and/or allowed herself to be transformed, into a veritable battering ram for the domestic violence industry. Feminist advocates and their allies in the media and political sphere have, like so many roman centurions, arranged themselves around her and are pressing her forward. Broader political events here in Australia have added further momentum as politicians look about for suitable populist issues with which to score cheap points and/or divert attention from other matters. This is patently obvious in Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull’s adoption of DV as one of his personal cause celebre.

This focussing of attention could have been a great thing in terms of getting decisive action on the issue of family violence and related issues like child abuse and elder abuse. But it won’t be. It won’t be because the whole episode is being choreographed by the archly-feminist domestic violence industry.

As a result all we will get is more of the same old failed and shockingly biased resourcing decisions and ‘initiatives’:

  • The continued turning-the-other-way when it comes to supporting male victims of DV and their children
  • The continued turning-the-other-way in relation the incidence of violent behaviour by women
  • The continued insistence that both the problem and its solution rests entirely in the hands of men
  • The continued emphasis on the discredited ‘Duluth model‘ of theorising domestic violence
  • The continued pouring of millions of dollars of public funds towards feminist consultants and advocacy groups
  • The creation of yet more consultative groups and the convening of more inquiries/royal commissions.

None of which have been proven to have any significant effect on reducing actual rates of perpetration and/or re-offending

And thus now we are witnessing a competition amongst state and federal politicians as to who cares the most about domestic violence, with ‘care’ manifesting itself through hideously costly inquiries and hand-outs to advocacy groups.

Here is a timeline of events:

Father who killed son, Luke Batty, at cricket ground had history of mental illness, says boy’s anguished mother (14 February 2014)

Luke Batty’s grieving mother speaks out on family violence (19 February 2014)

“The mother of Luke Batty says Australians need to have a greater understanding of family violence. Rosie Batty has also urged men to address the problem, in a long and emotional interview less than a week after her 11-year-old son was killed by his father at a Victorian cricket ground.”

Rosie Batty blasts Studio 10 host Joe Hildebrand on morning TV (2 April 2014)

Rosie Batty storms out of her murdered son’s inquest, almost in tears (23 October 2014)

It’s a disgrace some want Rosie to share the blame (23 October 2014)

Rosie Batty appointed ‘Australian of the Year’ (25 January 2015)

Rosie Batty’s speech after becoming 2015 Australian of the Year (25 January 2015)

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten seized the opportunity of Rosie’s appointment to climb higher upon the feminist bandwagon by calling for a federal Royal Commission on domestic violence. Someone should remind him that a federal inquiry is already underway and is due to report in March 2015.

Predictably the media then went to the Government to ask them whether they would support a national Royal Commission. Thank goodness that the Government stood its ground against this misguided proposal – at least thus far – although they did make other concessions.

Domestic violence funding in NSW: Rosie Batty as Australian of the Year raises profile of state ‘epidemic’ (26 January 2015)

Rosie Batty, Australian of the Year, will save lives of family violence victims, former police commissioner Ken Lay says (26 January 2015)

Ken Lay is one of the most well-recognised ‘white knights‘ on behalf of the Australian feminist movement, known for his frequent use of the incorrect statement that the “overwhelming majority” of domestic violence was perpetrated by men upon women.

Rosie Batty: I’d like to see a government campaign to stop domestic violence (27 January 2015)

Rosie Batty and Ken Lay appointed to new domestic violence advisory panel (28 January 2015)

I posted a quite cordial comment in response to this article but gee whiz, look what happened:

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Imagine that, a pro-feminist news source (The Guardian) censoring a (polite and non-threatening) dissenting viewpoint. Seriously now, this happens so often that I really must get into the habit of creating screen-saves each time I post a comment. (And so I did – refer below)

Any response to family violence must include funding legal services (29 Jan 2015)flooding

guardian12

guardian22

Rosie Batty – The Opposite Case (28 June 2015) Video

We must support Rosie Batty as she highlights domestic violence (6 February 2015)

Rosie Batty on why passion must lead to change on family violence (7 Feb 2015) In this article Rosie again makes no mention of the existence of male victims or female perpetrators. Rosie also suggests that the courts are biased towards the interests of the men’s rights movement and the rights of fathers.

‘Stop blaming the victim’: Rosie Batty to address MPs (2 March 2015) Rosie admits that the factors driving violent behaviour are “not readily understood“, whilst in the same paragraph asserting that it’s all about “gender inequality and “men’s sense of entitlement that a woman is their possession“. Except for violence committed by women, of course.

Rosie Batty calls for funds as poll finds family violence feared above terrorism (6 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Rosie Batty should apologise for this insult to Tony Abbott (28 September 2015)

See also:

Family law inquiry given green light by Senate as Rosie Batty questions Pauline Hanson’s role (18 September 2019)

Why people are furious John Setka reportedly invoked Rosie Batty’s name, by Wendy Tuohy (12 June 2019) It seems that he was expressing concern about the Domestic Violence Industry generally, rather than specifically about Rosie Batty, but look at the reaction.

Queen’s birthday honours list recognises trailblazers Rosie Batty and Ita Buttrose (10 June 2019)

The sad truth about the Luke Batty Foundation (19 February 2018) and Wrongdoing at Luke Batty Foundation is indefensible (22 February 2018) Mark Latham’s Outsiders discusses alleged financial irregularities and the abuse & turnover of female directors and staff, culminating in the closure of the Foundation.

If only Rosie Batty Hadn’t made her trauma about power (31 July 2017)

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

Mark Latham’s attack on Rosie Batty rejected by head of Rosie Batty Foundation (1 November 2016)

‘Women are being traumatised’: Rosie Batty call to end cross-examination by ‘abusers’  (25 October 2016) No mention, of course, of men traumatized via abuse and/or false accusations.

Rosie Batty partners with Lancome for domestic violence campaign (18 September 2016)

Anti-violence campaigner Rosie Batty shares son Luke’s struggle with male role models  (13 September 2016) Conveniently ignores the fact that girls are equally likely to grow to become abusers after exposure to violence/neglect perpetrated by mum and/or dad (or mum’s male partner).

Rosie Batty and Danny Blay Speak about MRA’s (15 June 2016)

Rosie Batty Says Men Who Have Never Hit Women Can Still Be Dangerous (15 June 2016) And women? Hmm, not so much it seems

Rosie Batty to lead family violence survivors council (23 March 2016)

Rosie Batty: Face to face with a domestic violence perpetrator (15 March 2016)

“The prospect of a feminist party in Australia intrigues Ms Batty. But she is not sure if she would make the giant step from activist to politician. “I would never discount it … who knows, all I do know is that I genuinely want to make a difference and so if I was comfortable and confident that I could make a significant difference through a political career, I think I would definitely consider that. I think it would be a real privilege to be given that opportunity.””

Saying goodbye to Rosie (25 January 2016)

Mark Latham slams Rosie Batty’s ‘feminist nonsense’ in podcast spray (22 January 2016) Some very interesting comments to be found amongst those in this reddit/r/Australia discussion thread

Outstanding response to Rosie Batty article (7 January 2016)

Liberal MP Graham Watt remained seated during Rosie Batty standing ovation (27 November 2015) See readers comments

Mark Latham argues we are putting women in danger (27 June 2015)

An open letter to Rosie Batty, by Mark Dent (15 March 2015)

Sanctified bigotry (10 February 2015)

Rosie Batty launches anti-domestic violence app for young women (15 February 2015) How easy it would have been to market this App as a tool for both young men and women, and what a sad indictment of feminism (& Ms. Batty) that this did not occur.

Is Rosie Batty Using Her Child’s Death For Her Own Fame And Fortune? (25 Jan 2015) Whilst many will consider this an unduly harsh and cynical assessment of the situation, I’ll let you be the judge as to the validity of the points raised within the context of the broader Australian DV debate.

For non-Australian readers: The meaning of the phrase “going batty

In exchanges within the reader’s comments section that follow various articles on the topic of DV, I have noted supporters of Ms Batty asserting that she is a champion for all victims of domestic violence. Her own Twitter profile makes it quite clear that is not the case.

batty1

White Ribbon Day – Parliament House Library says dissenting voices “deemed not to be relevant”

I happened to be browsing the parliament house website one day and came across an article entitled
International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (White Ribbon Day)—25 November 2014“. Below the article was the statement:

“We welcome your comments, or additional information which is relevant to a post. These can be added by clicking on the ‘Add your comment’ option above. Please note that the Parliamentary Library will moderate comments, and reserves the right not to publish comments that are inconsistent with the objectives of FlagPost. This includes spam, profanity and personal abuse, as well as comments that are factually incorrect or politically partisan.”

I considered it to be a rather biased and obviously pro-feminist attempt at addressing the issue of WRD and domestic violence. I subsequently submitted a comment that pointed out the one-sided nature of the information presented, noting that many had concerns about the approach adopted by the White Ribbon movement, and mentioning some of the issues noted elsewhere in this blog.

Anyway my comment never emerged from moderation and so I wrote to the head of the Parliament House Library, Dr Dianne Heriot, on 1 December 2014:

“Dear Dr Heriot
I’m sorry to trouble you with this matter but I could not find an email address related to the Flagpost section of your web site. Would you mind please passing it on to the relevant member of staff?

Some days ago I posted a response to an article in Flagpost (URL below), and received an auto message that it would be reviewed by a moderator. My comment, which was quite inoffensive, never appeared and I am wondering what happened. As other items in Flagpost all seem to be lacking any comments, perhaps any such comments have been lost in the system (?) Pls advise.”

Joanne James, Director Client Relations, responded the same day, stating:

“Dr Heriot has asked me to respond to your enquiry. Your comment was received on Friday afternoon, and was forwarded on this morning to the author of the post for consideration (we do not work on the weekends). We do not receive a lot of comments on our blog, but we do receive quite a bit of spam directed as comments – these tend to take a bit of time to sift through.

Janet will consider your thoughts as soon as possible, but as it is a sitting week, she may be caught up with other requests from the parliament.”

I thanked Joanne and waited patiently until 16 December 2014, when I wrote to her again:

“Hi Joanne. Just touching base again about the reader comment I contributed. 

The comment has yet to be uploaded, nor have I heard from Janet. Given that my comment does not appear to breach your posting guidelines, it would be appreciated if you would kindly pass on a gentle reminder. You mentioned that not many people contribute comments to the blog – this might be one reason.”

Thus finally on the 17th December 2014 I received the following news:

“I have spoken to the author and their Director. They advise that the comment wasn’t published as it was deemed not to be relevant to the post, which was specifically about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (White Ribbon Day).

They also indicated that the Parliamentary Library paper referred to in the post, Domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, updates several previous Parliamentary Library publications specifically on the levels of violence experienced by women in Australia. The paper acknowledges that men experience high levels of violence and refers readers to the ABS Personal Safety Survey for more detail on the nature of the violence experienced specifically by men in Australia.”

Harking back to the comment that I originally submitted (and of which I regrettably neglected to retain a copy), let’s just quickly run through the Library’s criteria to see if I crossed the line:

Spam – no, profanity – no, personal abuse – no, factually incorrect – I don’t believe so, politically partisan – no. That just leaves “the objectives of FlagPost“, so I wrote back to Joanne seeking details thereof.

Jonathan Curtis, head of the research branch in the Library, kindly wrote back to me on 19 December 2014 advising:

“The general objective that appears on the website is: “FlagPost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament”. More generally, it is to provide timely, brief, summary information to our clients (ie. MPs and Senators) and to alert them to recent research, publications and information.

However, as Joanne noted, your comment was not published because the Director considered that it was not directly relevant to main subject of the post.”

So in other words ‘we reserve the right to use hitherto unmentioned reasons to block reader feedback in relation to our articles, as and when it runs contrary to the personal views of the author’.

My subsequent response to Jonathan read as follows:

“Thank you for getting back to me with those further details.

So it would appear that I was correct in my assumption that my comment was blocked on the basis of criteria other than those stipulated in your web site.

The article provided background to White Ribbon Day, together with a degree of embellishment that presumably reflected the author’s own perspective on the matter. In my comment I sought to indicate that many people have significant reservations about the appropriateness or effectiveness of addressing domestic violence by focussing solely on violence against women – this being at the core of the White Ribbon movement. I also sought to indicate the existence of reasonable and fairly widely-held concerns regarding the accuracy of statements made by White Ribbon Campaign to support their position.

You note the primary function of the Library as being “to provide timely, brief, summary information to our clients (ie. MPs and Senators) and to alert them to recent research, publications and information.” I believe that it is vitally important that our elected representatives are kept abreast of alternative perspectives, rather than only being exposed to one particular position that happens to be most in vogue at the time.

I believe that blocking the voices of those who question or disagree with a particular position put forward by a member of the Library’s staff amounts to censorship of the basis of ideology, and that that is not an appropriate function of an Australian library. This same view is noted for example at http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/services/public_libraries/docs/accesstoinformation.pdf:

“A public library has a role as an unbiased source of information and ideas, including online content. It must accept responsibility for providing free access to materials and information presenting, as far as possible, all points of view on current and historical issues, including controversial issues.””

book_burningDeleting blog posts is so much cleaner and easier than burning books. It’s a win/win situation … for feminism and the environment.

White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!

I wanted to draw your attention to a disturbing development involving the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign (‘WRC’). Before proceeding, I should clarify that this particular organisation is separate and fundamentally different from the White Ribbon Campaign led by Ms. Erin Pizzey. The distinction between the two groups is discussed in this other post.

In summary, Erin’s organisation recognises and advocates for victims of both genders. It believes that the root cause of domestic violence lies in generational family violence, and that the patriarchy is an ideological concept devoid of value or meaning within the context of the debate regarding domestic violence.

As is the practice with many feminist organisations, WRC suppresses useful and potentially constructive debate and actively censors dissenting views. A very clear example of this occurred in February 2015 involving one of WRC’s ‘ambassadors’, a fellow by the name of Tanveer Ahmed.

The role of ambassadors within the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign is described as follows:

“White Ribbon Ambassadors are men who recognise the importance of men taking responsibility and playing a leadership role in preventing men’s violence against women.

White Ribbon Ambassadors are formal representatives of White Ribbon Australia who have the knowledge, skills, attributes and determination to influence Australian men to critically evaluate their attitudes and behaviours toward women.” (Source)

Tanveer did just that. He showed leadership by writing an article about domestic violence that presented a perspective that included an acknowledgment of female perpetrators of violence, as well as a discussion of certain factors underpinning violent behaviour by both men and women.

For feminists this was like a red rag to a bull. They incorrectly interpreted “factors underpinning perpetration” as meaning “excuses for men to commit violence against women”. And as for his claims that significant numbers of women are also committing violence, well, every feminist knows that’s not true.

I should also point out that the sorts of ideas Tanveer shared in his article have been proposed by others and are hardly new or revolutionary. This fact sheet from SAVE, for example, also identifies various factors as being potential precursors of partner violence (refer Fact #5).

Here are some of the key items that have appeared in the media thus far:

Men forgotten in violence debate‘ by Tanveer Ahmed (9 February 2015)

Feminism in crisis as male supporter expresses view of his own (9 February 2015)

White Ribbon Ambassador Tanveer Ahmed’s dangerous message on domestic violence by Clementine Ford (10 February 2015)

White Ribbon Ambassador Tanveer Ahmed recommitting rather than resigning (11 February 2015)

Look at how the feminists turned on Tanveer by perusing his Twitter stream around 9/10/11 February 2015. See the brickbats hurled at him by high-profile feminists like Jane Caro and Elizabeth Broderick, as well as countless faceless SJW, their mouths frothing with spittle. It’s ironic how online bullying morphs from patriarchal scourge to sacred duty when someone dares to question the holy grail of feminism.

In a lengthy statement issued by WRC on 10 February 2015 it was noted that “Dr. Ahmed has agreed to participate in the Ambassador recommitment process”. (Source) Shades of totalitarianism … quite chilling really.

Yet despite the issuing of this statement an angry feminist horde continued to bay for Tanveer’s blood across the social media. See, for example, the WRC Facebook page (extract below) and Twitter stream. Perhaps somewhat surprising, most of the comments in the Facebook page were posted by women. Surprising only in that WRC is ostensibly an organisation for men. I guess the male supporters were well and truly cowed, just how their feminist masters wish them to be.

wrc1

Australian ‘White Knight’ politician Tim Watts, now teetering on the cusp of becoming a fully-fledged ‘Mangina’, stood up in federal parliament to demand that Dr Ahmed stand down from his role with WRC. A video of Tim’s speech is provided in his Facebook page (see 11 February), with further righteous fury evident in Tim’s Tweets.

The feminist’s message is crystal clear: “Men, we want you nice and visible up the front but don’t you dare say anything that isn’t 100% in accord with the feminist narrative or we will turn on you in a flash.”

The WRC is not an organisation that is interested in accurately describing the nature of domestic violence, in objectively teasing it apart into its component pieces, and in considering the widest possible range of solutions. This is an organisation that places a higher priority on maintaining the ‘integrity’ of the feminist narrative, and in pursuing both individual and collective self-interest.

Thus WRC portrays a picture of DV that conforms to their biased viewpoint, and that only acknowledges those causes and those solutions that fit neatly into the framework that they themselves have fashioned.

The thing is, we have already thrown many years and many million of dollars at that approach, only to have the self-same feminists come back to the public-funding trough claiming that the problem is getting worse and that we are now facing an “epidemic” of domestic violence. “Oh, but if only we had more funding we could keep the women and children safe“.

The ideologues at WRC and elsewhere in the femosphere now chanting ‘cast him out’ are nothing less than blinkered gender fascists. How any right-thinking adult could continue to support this group simply beggars belief.

The sacking of Tanveer from his role at The Australian newspaper and his removal from the role of ambassador with WRC demonstrate further escalation in the process of feminist retribution. The only question is whether the ad hominem attacks will continue in order to drive home the message to not only Tanveer, but others, to avoid criticism of all things feminist.

Rightly or wrongly I see some parallels with the case of recently-released Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste. I think I can state with confidence though, that any irony will be lost on SJW who pledged support for one, only to subsequently attack the other.

greste1

Tanveer’s next best step would be to accept a role as an ambassador for Erin Pizzey’s group, securing a far more inclusive outlet for his passion, as well as according him the opportunity to offer a one-fingered wave to his misguided former colleagues-in-arms.

Postscript 27 April 2015: Dr Ahmed to speak at USA DV symposium 5-7 June 2015

tahmed

See also:

Reddit mensrights discussion thread on this blog post (12 February 2015)

Say goodbye to the burly blue-collar face of unions: they’re now feminist (4 June 2015)

Lynched by the feminist mob-ette (14 March 2015)

White Ribbon Australia’s ethical dilemma (19 February 2015)

‘Disempowered’ men still lead on economic power (13 February 2015)

White Ribbon Australia ambassador challenges the sisterhood – is slated for re-education camp (15 February 2015)

Columnist Tanveer Ahmed sacked by the Australian over new plagiarism allegation (16 February 2015)

White Ribbon’s got some explaining to do (17 February 2015) As does the author of this article … so many obvious misrepresentations

Men’s rights activism, White Ribbon Campaign and Liberal Feminism (9 February 2015)

Elsewhere in this blog see:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

pplhaverights

White Ribbon Australia acknowledges male victims and invites communication (credibility trigger warning)

White Ribbon Day (25 November), and the days before and after it, saw quite a flurry of activity on the White Ribbon Australia Facebook page. I visited the page a number of times during this period to monitor discussion, occasionally contribute some comments, and generally check out what was going on.

I was interested to note the unexpectedly large number of posts from people drawing attention to the fact that many men were victims of domestic violence, that support services for male victims were inadequate or non-existent, and so on. I was also surprised to see a number of occasions where moderators sought to hose down dissent by uploading posts like this one:

“White Ribbon Australia believes that all forms of violence are unacceptable and acknowledges that domestic violence is experienced by both men and women. However, we also acknowledge that the majority of victims of domestic violence are women. We are aware that there are other organisations working to stop violence against men and we commend any work they do to stop violence. If you’re a male experiencing violence, please contact MensLine on 1300 78 99 78 bit.ly/wrmensline. Similarly, the White Ribbon Campaign has a central focus; end violence against women.”

Another post, from a WRC ‘ambassador’, was similar but also earnestly invited communication with those who held views that differed from those espoused by WRC.

I was surprised because I haven’t noted comments like this in the WRC web site, or in their literature or submissions to inquiries, etc.

But alas, the positive spin ends there.

For at the same time that WRC were proffering soothing words, they were progressively removing posts from people who questioned their female-only focus or were in any way critical of their mission or their claims. They didn’t do this straight away however. I guess that would have amounted to too-obvious censorship. No they waited a half a day or a day before they quietly disappeared those troubling and clearly unacceptable posts. I’m guessing the rationale was to preserve the ideological purity of their message for the benefit of future generations. But they didn’t stop there. Oh, no. In my case, and I doubt I was alone in this regard, they banned me from making any future posts on their Facebook page.

When later I saw a particular comment posted, I simply had to respond and so I used an alternate Facebook account. The one comment to which I responded was “1 woman per week dies at the hand of her partner or ex in Aus – what a sad stat”. All I said in response was “and every ten days a man dies at the hand of his partner or ex – also a sad stat” and provided a link to a web page in which that stat was discussed. 

The next day I discovered that my final comment had also been removed AND my Facebook account was locked – presumably as a result of a complaint to Facebook HQ. Given that I had not used that account for some time or for any other purpose, I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that the complaint came from WRC.

See also:

Comment on the White Ribbon Campaign (13 July 2012) Old habits die hard it seems!

Other posts in this blog most relevant to this topic:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses part of the problem Vs. The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses all of the problem

 

 

 

Readers at ‘The Conversation’ call for an end to feminist bias and censorship (domestic violence)

I made mention of an Australian web site called The Conversation in an earlier post. The Conversation features articles that range from politics and general current affairs to more esoteric matters, with a marked predisposition towards the tastes and values of left-leaning progressive liberals.

Most readers comments seem to be penned by sycophantic members of the ‘chardonnay set’ and career academics, although it’s hard to say if they are truly representative of the overall readership given that many other comments are moderated into oblivion.

Feminism and feminist topics are heavily covered (example), whilst mens issues are all but ignored. As a consequence, The Conversation often runs articles concerning domestic violence, sexual assault, and the ‘wage gap’ with only minor variations around the standard feminist theme on those subjects.

On 1 October 2014 they ran an article entitled ‘Why don’t we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence?‘ by Sarah Wendt. There was nothing exceptional about the article – it claimed that domestic violence was a gendered issue, made no mention of male victims or female perpetrators, and slipped in a promo for the author’s book. Absolutely typical of its genre really.

No, the exceptional part was the fact that almost all of the readers comments were critical of the biased treatment of the subject.  Later, many also raised the issue of the relatively large number of comments being removed. Some readers also queried why the author of the article had chosen not to contribute her thoughts regarding the unfolding discussion.

I launched into the fray quite early on, commenting thus:

“So “Domestic violence is about gender power relations”? What then of recent research that tells us that lesbian couples are the most predisposed towards partner violence?

So another article about domestic violence that assumes from the get-go that DV consists purely of men’s violence towards women and that any other form of DV is a rare aberration that is unworthy of serious consideration. These stats seem to tell a different story: http://www.oneinthree.com.au/storage/pdfs/1IN3_Fact_Sheets_Sept_2014.pdf with many more at http://www.fighting4fair.com/misrepresenting-reality/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

This ongoing feminist monopolisation of the DV debate is tired and its wrong. If we want to tackle the scourge of DV, rather than just lob grenades in a war against a mythical patriarchy, then we need to acknowledge, discuss and address the entire problem not just the bits that fit into the feminist narrative.”

Based on my earlier experience with The Conversation I was surprised by the lack of punitive action by the site’s moderator. All that changed the next afternoon, however, when the thought police suddenly appeared on the scene and removed sixteen of the comments. By the time the site stopped accepting readers comments at lunchtime the following day, a total of twenty-seven comments had been removed.

In a final hurrah before the editorial team took their bat and ball and ran home, Helen Westerman, Deputy Managing Editor at The Conversation, posted a comment stating that:

“Nowhere does this piece suggest that domestic violence does not affect men. We have run many pieces making the point that men are also subject to partner violence (by women or other men) and I thank the men here who have shared their experiences. They are moving and valid.

And I would ask that this understanding is also extended to the viewpoint of women around this topic and that women be allowed to speak about this issue. And I also thank the women who have left their experiences here. They are moving and valid.

Sadly, this debate so often this devolves into a zero sum game: if women’s perspectives on violence are written about, then somehow it means that men’s are being “ignored”. Simply not true.

The hard truth is whichever way you cut the cake, women are affected disproportionately more than men by domestic violence. However, men are more affected by violence in general.

Neither fact should make us feel particularly proud – and should make us want to change this situation. The common ground here is that it shouldn’t happen to anybody, not matter who is meting it out.

It makes for very uncomfortable reading and elicit strong emotions. But we’ve got to talk about it.” 

To this I replied:

“Helen, thank you for contributing your thoughts but please, your opening sentence is an embarrassingly poor defence in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about both the bias of the article and in the subsequent moderation of comments.

Seriously, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were reading an article about (only) male victims of domestic abuse … would you accept the excuse that “the article never said women were not victims”?

None of those commenting here have suggested that women not “be allowed to speak about this issue”, and that includes those comments that were binned. I think everyone, like myself, appreciates the opportunity to hear all perspectives on the subject. But this forum is for grown-ups and some questioning and rebuttal is an expected feature of adult ‘conversation’

Yes I agree, “we’ve got to talk about it”. Now about those moderated comments”

Highlights of the comments section included several insightful and incisive comments from psychologist Adam Blanch, including:

“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 http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf

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.”

There was also this classic comment from a guy called Andy George:

“Definition of irony:

A website called ‘THE CONVERSATION’, publishes an article titled “Why don’t we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence” calling on people to talk about the issue, then censors comments that are from male victims of domestic violence but leaves the equivalent posts by women who were victims of domestic violence.”

Negative aspects of the comments section included examples of those tiresome, incorrect yet oft-repeated assertions of feminists that:

  • men should just listen to discussions about domestic violence but not contribute their thoughts (unless to offer unqualified agreement) because to do so only “derails” the discussion
  • men only raise the subject of male victims and/or female perpetrators in order to excuse/minimise the behaviour of male batterers and/or deny/minimise the experiences of battered women
  • by raising concerns about the appropriateness of feminists continually asserting that ‘domestic violence = men’s violence towards women’ men are attacking and denigrating female victims, and women generally

Anyway, well done to all the men and women who made the effort to bring the author’s sexist bias to account. Hopefully this will be a harbinger of the reaction to the inevitable future displays of sexism and gender bias at The Conversation, and in the media generally. Enough is enough.

See also:

Reddit discussion thread concerning moderation in relation to another article at The Conversation

A little less Conversation, by Institute of Public Affairs (undated)

“As the site’s charter admits, it hopes to ‘give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas’, and aims to work for the advancement of the ‘public good.’ It also promises to be ‘editorially independent’, provide ‘diverse’ content and be ‘free of commercial or political bias.’ Whether it achieves this is open to question.

Professor Judith Sloan, another academic who can boast a tangible impact on policy and public debate, is unconvinced:

‘this site strikes me as emblematic of all that is wrong with Australian universities. Crammed with puerile, naïve, left-wing tosh, the contributing academics…really have no idea when it comes to serious public policy contributions.'”

A rather one-sided ‘conversation’, by Tony Thomas (14 February 2014) Another group – not MRA-related – express their concern about the level of bias evident at The Conversation

Postscript 25 January 2015: There are a few occasions when the moderator remains in his/her kennel, and then it’s refreshing to see that adults can indeed engage in vigorous debate without chaos ensuing. Look at this article for example.

Postscript 23 March 2015: A moderator removed a comment I added to this article about domestic violence. My comment was as follows:

“Rob, I haven’t read your report yet (but will do so shortly), so the following comment is based on what I’ve read in the media. It appears that your report talks about the need for more & better intervention and behaviour modification programs for perpetrators, but that your recommendations in this regard are limited to male perpetrators.

Can I ask why you would not adopt a gender-neutral approach in this regard and have programs that catered for both male and female perpetrators. I mean, it’s not as though there are so few violent women that we can afford to just wave them away.

Indeed I understand that the rate of increase in violent crime by women is exceeding that of men in many jurisdictions. See http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/

Postscript 1 April 2015: A moderator removed a comment I added to this article about sexual assault. My comment was as follows:

“It’s deeply ironic that the title of your article is “let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators”, but within the first sentence you exclude acknowledgement or consideration of all female perpetrators of sexual assault. On what basis? There’s less reported crimes involving female perps, so it’s OK to just airbrush them out?

I’m also troubled by you referencing the 2013 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women survey, which didn’t bother to ask respondents about their attitudes towards violence to men. Thus the questions about violence towards women were robbed of context and so we don’t know the extent to which the issue is men’s attitudes towards women, or Australians attitudes towards violence generally.”

Postscript 22 June 2015: A moderator removed many comments that readers contributed to this article about online harassment. This matter is discussed further in this post.

Reader Craig asked: Why was a dissenting comment regarding information contained in this article, with links to support its claims, removed by the moderator? There was no abuse or apparent breaching of the Community Standards (unless it was a Twitter technicality?)

Moderator Cory replies: We also require research that’s credible:

“Back up your ideas with evidence and fact where possible. If you’re claiming something as scientific fact, try to provide credible references.”

While some of the links were fine, many of them – upon reading them – were less than credible. They were closer to a smear campaign than anything resembling research. This is also prohibited in our community standards:

“We’ll distinguish between constructive comments and smear campaigns. We’ll remove any deliberate attempts to misinform, distort facts or misrepresent the opinions of others.”

Smear campaign? WTF? “a strategy to discredit a person, esp. a public figure, through disparaging remarks or false accusations“. We are talking about ideas, Cory. Can anyone point me towards any of the linked papers on this page that attacked a person. Aren’t the readers of The Conversation mature enough to, you know, exercise their own judgement about others’ opinions?